WORK AND PENSIONS

David Laws: I congratulate the Secretary of State on surviving the bloodbath of last week's reshuffle. We are all very relieved not to have a fifth Secretary of State within a period of just 20 months. I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's new ministerial colleagues.
	The Secretary of State will recall that, a few weeks ago, the Chancellor said that there was 90 to 95 per cent. agreement on the Turner proposals. That is welcome, but can the Secretary of State say more about where the remaining disagreement lies? In particular, can he tell us whether the Treasury has now accepted Lord Turner's argument about a later state pension age, which the Secretary of State has already indicated that he supports?

James Plaskitt: Our latest estimate for 2004–05 is that £550 million was overpaid in income support through a combination of fraud, customer error and official error—equivalent to 5.3 per cent. of expenditure on that benefit. That is the lowest level of overpayment recorded to date, and a substantial improvement on the inherited 1997–98 level of 9.2 per cent. It is our firm intention to reduce overpayment levels even further.

James Plaskitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is making matters clear to his constituents, because he seems to be confusing the Inland Revenue's responsibilities with those of the Department for Work and Pensions. My and the Department's responsibilities cover fraud and error in the system. I remind him that we have set ourselves some very tough targets to reduce losses through fraud and error, and we are on course to meet them. We aimed to get such losses down by 33 per cent. by March 2004; in fact, they were down by 37 per cent. Our next target is to reduce them by 50 per cent.; so far, they are down by 44 per cent.

Keith Vaz: But as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, there is a difference between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. Like the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), I have constituents coming to my surgeries saying that they have received demands for their income support to be repaid because of mistakes made by officials. What guidelines do Ministers give to officials to ensure that, where a mistake is made and a demand is issued for the repayment of the whole sum, time is given for those in need of such benefits to pay them back?

Simon Burns: I am slightly puzzled by that answer, given that my question was about the representations that have been received on the issue. I got no answer to that. People such as Mrs. Knight, the postmistress at Roxwell post office, who presented a petition of 500 signatures that I sent to the Minister, are extremely concerned about the decision and the impact that it will have on clients and on post offices after 1910. Will the Minister, even at this late stage, consider reviewing the decision?

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman may wish to hark back to 1910, but I am interested in the future for the Post Office. We have had other representations, such as one recently from a postmaster in Plymouth who pointed out that since his customers have started migrating from POCAs to other accounts, his business has increased. He will not be the only one saying that. I have certainly received the hon. Gentleman's representation on the subject, because I have read his article in the Westminster View, which I commend to the House. He wrote:
	"I am not arguing for the retention of the Post Office Card Account as it is"—

James Plaskitt: I am reading on. He continues:
	"We must ensure that pensioners and lone parents . . . can access money in a post office setting and have the whistles and bells that we demand from our current accounts readily available to them in a user friendly way."
	That is exactly what we are trying to do, in conjunction with the Post Office.

James Plaskitt: The accounts that will emerge are primarily a matter for the Post Office. If the hon. Gentleman has been following developments, he will see that the Post Office recently launched a new account and is working on others. It is not for me to say what accounts it will come up with; that is a matter for the Post Office. I remind him that the new managing director of the network, Alan Cook, whom I quoted in an earlier answer and whom I meet reasonably regularly to talk about the situation, is looking for new products that will be attractive to the customer base. As I have also said in answer to previous questions, we are anxious to ensure that all our clients who want to continue accessing their benefit from the Post Office can do so.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to make as much fuss as he can and likes to whip up the concern that he was talking about, but the fact is that because of the extra support that the Government are putting into the rural network, the rate of post office closures, about which he purports to be worried, has slowed dramatically in rural areas, compared to the rate under the Conservative Government. On that issue, as on so many others, the hon. Gentleman is audible but not credible.

Richard Ottaway: May I give a warm welcome to the Secretary of State's statement today that he seeks to control the spread of means-testing? From the Minister's discussions with the Chancellor, could he elaborate a bit on how that will be achieved?

James Duddridge: Will the Minister confirm that more than 60,000 occupational pension schemes have been wound up or are in the process of being wound up, involving more than 1 million people? Furthermore, will she comment on press stories over the weekend that scheme members are being offered so-called bribes, so that schemes can close early?

Jim Devine: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to taking action against the companies and local authorities that, when the Conservative party was in power, took pension holidays and created many of the problems that we have today?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend speaks some words of wisdom and I know that they are based on the many years that he spent as a trade union officer dealing with public authorities under the Conservative Administration. What he says is quite right. The Finance Act 1986 almost actively encouraged employers to take pension holidays, which, in the long term, have proved disastrous for many pension schemes.

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) and I recently held a meeting in Aberdeen to which 70 pensioners who had lost their pensions as a result of the collapse of the Richards pension scheme turned up to discuss the findings of the ombudsman's report. They said that they were looking not for compensation for hurt feelings, but for the money that they had lost. When the Minister examines the financial assistance scheme with fresh eyes—I welcome him to his post—will he find out whether it is possible to ensure that the scheme is at least at the level of the Pension Protection Fund, if not better? Ultimately, it does not matter who is to blame. Individuals have lost money that they thought was rightfully theirs and there is a responsibility for someone somewhere to ensure that they get the money that they were expecting in their old age.

Anne McGuire: We are writing to everyone who we believe may have an entitlement to pension credit, encouraging them to apply and advising how the Pension Service can help them do so. Over 2 million mailings are planned during 2006–07. The Pension Service visits around 20,000 people every week who are likely to be entitled to pension credit and provides advice on a wide range of benefits—not just pension credit.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman and others should listen to the comments made by Tricia Jenkins, who is president of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and who has reminded colleagues in her federation that the Post Office card account has "a limited life". She went on to say that postmasters
	"hope to convert existing POCA customers into using another"
	Post Office Ltd service, which is starting to happen already. There is no reason to suppose that the end of Government funding for the Post Office card account in 2010 will jeopardise the existence of the Post Office in any way. As I have said, the income stream for sub-postmasters will continue if customers switch to using other post office-accessible accounts or to any successor account to the Post Office card account.

James Plaskitt: Certainly, prime responsibility for this rests with the private sector and the trustees of the fund, who are involved in supporting the Pension Protection Fund. We have introduced a financial assistance scheme to assist those people who are most vulnerable, most at risk and have most to lose, and who could not be brought within the coverage of the PPF because of its retrospective nature. We put up the £400 million of Government funding to support those people. We have undertaken to review that, and the review will be expedited as soon as possible.

Iraq (Basra Incident)

David Heath: Three of those missing came from Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton in my constituency. The words of shock and loss expressed by the Secretary of State will be shared by those associated with the squadron, which I had the privilege of visiting only a few months ago, and by the entire Yeovilton community. He was kind enough to say to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that he would report further to the House once he had the results of the board of inquiry. Will he also take testimony from those who know best the hazards of this sort of flying—the air crew who engage in it day in and day out, week in and week out, on behalf of this country—and make sure that their views are fed into any future action that he takes?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman draws me into a level of detail that I have been urged not to be drawn into by those who are responsible for the health and welfare of the families of those missing, presumed killed. Over the past 48 hours or thereabouts, I have been schooled in the vocabulary of these announcements, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance—he will know this from his own experience—that the armed forces are giving the families of those whom we believe were killed in the incident the level of support that would be expected. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a level of communication going on there that would be entirely inappropriate in public.

Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Civil Aviation Bill

Derek Twigg: I do not think that that is the case, but I will confirm the correct position to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
	I hope that my explanation of the Government's thinking behind making the provision a power, rather than a duty, will convince hon. Members to disagree with the Lords in Lords amendment No. 1.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would affect the way in which the charges should be set. Although the Government agree that it is reasonable that airport operators should be expected to set noise charges that are proportionate, we do not agree that that is something that needs to be provided for in the Bill. Airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for more than 20 years and there has been no suggestion that they have not done so in an appropriate or proportionate way. However, if there is a problem with the charging scheme, the Secretary of State will have the power that I mentioned to direct an airport operator regarding the manner in which its charges are to be fixed. The airport should be subject to the control scheme that it sets up to address the effects of its operations on the locality. There are other considerations on airport charging, such as international guidance that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at levels that are prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft. Again, we did not think it necessary to make those considerations statutory requirements. The existing provisions function well, and they do not need to be altered in any way.
	Lords amendment No. 3 is a minor technical amendment to clarify the provisions of clause 1, which inserts a new section 38 into the 1982 Act. New subsection (3) defines noise and emissions requirements. The amendment simply ensures that cross-reference is made to mention of those requirements in both subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d), rather than solely to subsection (1)(d).

Julian Brazier: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) to the Chamber and, indeed, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron)? I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, although I do not know how many there will be, because few people think that the noise of 1,000 soundbites has settled anything for long.
	Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government seek to overturn, replaces the word, "shall", with "may" in the provisions on charging on noise and emissions. As the Minister explained, Lords amendment No. 2 makes those charges proportionate to the noise made. The remaining Lords amendments are relatively minor amendments on noise. There is all the difference in the world between the compulsion expressed in the word, "shall", and the vague non-committal aspiration in "may". This is an almost completely empty Bill, and in tabling those amendments the House of Lords sought to tweak the Government's tail so that they would do something about the problem. The amendments try to tease out an explanation from the Government as to whether the Bill will, in fact, do something or is just another eye-catching initiative.
	The Government recently admitted that their domestic target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 will not be reached. The Conservative Government cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 7 per cent. in their last seven years in office, but CO 2 emissions are higher now than they were nine years ago. Aviation on its own explains why they have risen since the Government came to power. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has pointed to another possible source of rising emissions. The Bill, however, does not include any targets, sliding scales, rewards for airlines and airports for successfully tackling noise and emissions, or measures of success. Indeed, there is not even an obligation to measure, let alone report, progress or success. Above all, there is no compulsion at any point. In Committee, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who then had ministerial responsibility for aviation, said that
	"the provisions in the Bill have been introduced specifically in response to some airports—I name Manchester airport in particular—that have made it clear that they seek legal clarification of the powers that they wish to use. Manchester airport may want to fix its charges by reference to aircraft noise or emissions, and it seeks the cover of legislation to do so."
	The Bill therefore aims to close a legal gap identified by Manchester airport's lawyers.
	Clause 1, the main clause of the Bill, does not require anyone to do anything, but BAA has already introduced emissions charging schemes which it negotiated with the Civil Aviation Authority two years ago, and the Minister admitted that some airports have operated arrangements relating to noise for 20 years, so what are the Government introducing the measure for? Without an amendment requiring a degree of compulsion, as Lords amendment No. 1 does, the Bill does nothing, except remove the noise gap, which we will debate when we reach the next group of amendments.
	The Government should not preach environmental concern, then waste a golden opportunity to do something about it. It is clear that the Government are not sure what the Bill is about. I feel for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who has had it dumped in his lap towards the end of its course. From the way that he delivered his speech, I suspect that he, too, is not certain what the Bill is for, and that is not an attack on the hon. Gentleman. He did not draft his speech and had nothing to do with the Bill's origins.
	In Committee I said to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck):
	"Surely one of the purposes of an emissions-related charging scheme would be to encourage operators to use aircraft which emit less emissions and noise at that aerodrome. I simply do not follow her logic on that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 6–7, 28.]
	The Minister chose to raise again today the idea that smaller airports will have only one class of aircraft operating from them. Surely the provisions should encourage airports to provide incentives for their operators to use aircraft that are quieter and which produce less NOx and less CO 2 emissions. The Government are uncertain what they are trying to achieve.
	In December 2003 the Government produced a White Paper on the future of aviation in the UK. Summarising the purposes of the White Paper, the then Secretary of State said that
	"we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs"—
	by which he meant environmental costs—
	"that it imposes."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1434.]
	In Committee the Minister said:
	"There is no question that aviation has an impact in environmental terms, and we need to rise to the challenge that it presents. Those living close to airports have genuine anxieties, which the Government and I recognise absolutely and we must move forward in responding to it".

Julian Brazier: I agree with the hon. Lady on that point, but I am concerned about cross-subsidy between airports in the south-east, which, as she knows, is the big issue. The key point about the new runway at Stansted concerns cross-subsidy, and, in theory, the new power for the Secretary of State could be used to encourage further cross-subsidy—we already have a differential charging system. In practice, however, the Government have not pledged to use that limited power. The real issue is that clause 1 does so little, which means that the Government, who are committed to tackling emissions and noise, are doing almost nothing in this Bill.
	My final point often comes up either on Report or in Lords amendments. The Government have made it clear that there are technical defects in the wording of the amendments. Indeed, House of Lords Hansard makes it clear that the drafter of the amendments knew that there were technical defects in the wording, which is why I shall not seek to press the matter to a vote. The amendments were tabled out of sheer frustration in the Lords, where there were no more answers on what the Government will do about environmental problems than we have received in this House. They seek to introduce an element of compulsion into clause 1, and when the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will indicate what the Government are actually going to do on noise around our airports and on emissions of oxides of nitrogen and of CO 2 .

John McDonnell: I welcome my hon. Friends the Member for (Derek Twigg) and for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) to the Front Bench and to their new responsibilities. They deserved promotion, although they have been passed a poisoned chalice.
	In the past few months, the political parties have vied with one other to prove their green credentials. I am pleased that this Bill has appeared so soon, because one does not need to sledge across the Arctic while looking up the tails of half a dozen huskies or convene a summit of world leaders to identify an environmental issue, when there is one within 13 miles of this House, namely the impact of Heathrow airport in terms of noise and emissions. What worries me about the Government's failure to accept the Lords amendment and the Minister's failure to elaborate how the Government's system would operate effectively is that nothing is being done on tackling noise emissions and NO 2 emissions.
	I hoped that even if the Government were not to accept the amendment, they would explain how they would subsequently designate aerodromes which are not complying with a basic standard of emissions control, but we have received no information on that point. That is why the debates in the other place and in this place have moved further towards compulsion than some would have liked. It is often said that we have reached the stage with the aviation industry that we reached on the control of emissions from cars 30 years ago, when we had a long debate, which led us to incentivise research and development on improvements to engines and overall design and to control the usage of cars through either vehicle taxation levies or fuel duties. That is exactly where the amendment stands with regard to aviation.
	We thought that there would be an opportunity to introduce legislation that placed a duty on aerodromes and then enabled them to adjust their charging policies if necessary. That would incentivise the aviation industry to reduce emissions by way of research and development, better engine design and improved flight practices. It would not only encourage good practice in the industry overall but incentivise individual companies by not placing a duty on them. The vague power that the Secretary of State will have, with no clarification of how it will be exercised, lets them off the hook. That means that we will progress no further and that areas will still be blighted by emissions from the aviation industry. From my own perspective, this proves that yet again the aviation industry has dominated the policy-making network that surrounds the Department for Transport, while the voices of environmentalists and of constituents who are suffering as a result of these emissions have not been heard.
	It has been argued that the Secretary of State would be able to intervene at a future date. However, it would be invaluable if we could have a description of sorts as to how he would do so. What criteria would be used? How could representations be made to the Government to ensure that that mechanism was exercised by Ministers? What representations could be made by local communities? What would be the forum in which they would make those representations? What would be the role of individual MPs representing their constituents? At what stage would the consultation take place? How will these matters be brought before the House? At the moment, they are subject to the negative procedure, so there will be no opportunity for Members to trigger debate or even to comment on any decision that is made by the Government.
	I am afraid that I fully support the Lords in this amendment, because compulsion is the only way forward, not only to bring the industry to a realistic assessment of the impact that it is having on our environment, but to force it to take some action. Without compulsion, we will go on for decades without having a real and direct impact. As a representative of the constituency in which Heathrow is sited, I am aware that even with existing legislation and voluntary agreements, my constituents' quality of life is directly affected by the noise and emissions that pollute the atmosphere. It was recently estimated that 5,000 of my constituents are being poisoned by air pollution from the airport.
	The existing system is not working. The amendment would introduce an element of compulsion and put some pressure on the industry, and we would be able to move forward in a consensual way, since every party wants to be the greenest party in the land at the moment. I ask the Minister at least to describe how he envisages that the system will work and have an effect in the absence of the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have no idea what the figure would be. As Ministers normally say in such circumstances, I shall make inquiries and write to him. However, the point is that, instead of setting a figure, we are considering establishing a structure.
	When my noble Friend Lord Bradshaw moved the amendment on Report in the other place, he drew attention to the position that persists in Birmingham and Coventry airports. He explained that Birmingham has exceptionally good noise monitoring arrangements, which are vigorously enforced and benefit the nearby residents. On the other hand, Coventry, which shares the same airspace, has no such noise monitoring in place. Consequently, the older, noisier, principally freight-based aircraft use Coventry airport because it is not subject to the same controls. By resisting the amendment, the Government appear to be inviting us to visit that position on the rest of the country.
	Lords amendment No. 2 proposes that the charges on noise should be proportional to the noise emitted. I cannot understand why the Government continue to resist that. It is a no-brainer. In the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham prayed in aid smaller airports and the regulatory burden that would be visited on them. He specifically mentioned Tiree airport. I am delighted that, at last, the so-called peripheral communities are getting their fair share of say in Government policy on the matter, but I do not believe that working out the charges for noise and emissions at Tiree airport would be especially onerous. It would take most people approximately five minutes. I know from the operation of flight information services at Tingwall airport in Shetland in my constituency that the Government have previously showed precious little regard for the regulatory burden on small aircraft and, frankly, small airports have more pressing concerns than what we are discussing.

Alistair Carmichael: My hon. Friend is uncharacteristically restrained when he says "something of a red herring", because the matter is a total red herring. It shows the general weakness of the Government's case that they resort to producing such examples in support of their arguments. I do not understand why they are so resistant to fairly simple, straightforward commonsense measures, which could make a genuine difference to the people who live near the major airports, especially those in the south- east of England whose lives are blighted by noise. The Government have a chance to act. The Under-Secretary must tell us why he chooses not to take it.

Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his response to the previous intervention? Not only are the aggregate CO 2 emissions from aviation rising fast, as flight numbers rise much faster than the rate at which efficiency improves, but that rise has more than accounted for the rise in CO 2 emissions that is one of the sadder achievements of the past nine years of this Government.

Lembit �pik: I rise to seek the Government's position on general aviation, particularly British general aviation, regarding noise and emissions. In doing so, I welcome the Minister to his new role; I am sure that the general aviation sector is looking forward to making direct connections with him.
	I fly aircraft, but they are little ones that do not make much noise or use much petrol. My Mooney M20J can travel at 190 mph and do 24 miles per gallon, which is perhaps better than the Minister's own road vehicle can do. Like me, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) also flies regularly. The Minister should know that we have created a loosely constituted groupthe parliamentary aviation groupthat focuses on the interests of general aviation and of business general aviation. It is clear to us that general aviation and business general aviation are not the significant problem in terms of noise and emissions. The Minister may already know that general aviation is a 5,000 million a year sector of the British economy and provides some 21,000 jobs. While it is therefore big in business terms, it is small in terms of the impact that we are discussing.
	General aviation's total daily environmental impact is roughly the same as that of one jumbo jet in the first five hours of a transatlantic flight. Indeed, the entire fuel usage of the piston sector of general aviation is equivalent to roughly 20 minutes of usage by the road transport sector. It is also rare for general aviation, or the smaller business jets, to cause complaints about noise. While most of the large jets carry predominantly leisure passengers, most general aviation and small business jets carry business passengers, including Ministers and Opposition Members from time to time.
	Leaving aside the points about the amendments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is not the Government's intention to create unintended consequences for the general aviation sector and the business aviation sector of aircraft that weigh less than 10 tonnes. I do not expect the Minister to spend much time on that issue, but I can inform him that the general aviation sector, which probably has not been organised or strategic enough in the past in developing links with his Department, is concerned that announcements intended to check noise and emissions from large jets actually punish the smaller aircraft that are not the problem. I hope that the Minister will also confirm that he is willing to continue to develop the relationships that his immediate predecessor was developing effectively, to ensure that general and business general aviation will be taken into consideration when legislation and amendmentssuch as those we are discussingare proposed. I am happy to work with him on an informal cross-party basis to ensure strategic consideration of that important economic sector, which does not cause the environmental and noise disturbances that so vex many people living near large airports.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend's ingenious analogy shows how weak is the system, which will be the only way of controlling noise.
	The frequency of flights through the night and early morning, when there is reduced background or ambient noise, is not considered. The same total noise exposure can be achieved with a few noisy aircraft or a larger number of less noisy ones. The removal of the night movements limit implies that as aircraft become less noisy, more flights can be accommodated in the same noise quota. For example, under the quota count system, one Boeing 747 could be replaced with four Boeing 777s. It is no wonder that hon. Members on both sides who represent residents in the vicinity of a designated airport are concerned about the proposal, especially as the relationship between airports and local residents is not bathed in trust.
	Mr. Steve Charlish, who is well-known to my hon. Friends as chairman of the East Leicestershire Villages Against Airspace campaign group, sent a letter to the managing director of Nottingham East Midlands airport :
	You might be aware that I have sent since 8th August 2005, forty two . . . noise complaints . . . sent by fax to your offices, relating to NEMA aircraft noise. However you may not be aware that I have had no response to my 145 complaints of wholly unacceptable aircraft noise, detailed within those 42 pages since that date 8th August 2005. As your radar records are deleted within 30 days, it is essential therefore, for me to bring this to your attention, as this makes further scrutiny of complaints impossible.
	Evidence supplied by Steve Charlish and others makes it clear that people whose lives are disturbed by aircraft noise and movements that deviate from established flight pathsthe Minister did not discuss that at alland who make frequent complaints are regarded by NEMA as nuisance complainants.
	It does not help that responsibility for such things is fragmented between different agencies and organisations. The public and Members of Parliament are given the runaround by airports and the air traffic control system responsible for air traffic movements if they try to establish whether a flight diverged grossly from its flight path, which is why we sought to provide in another part of the Bill for a commercial flights officer. I do not wish to reopen that debate, as I simply wish to highlight the fact that there is little protection against noise. Airports do not always have the facts to hand, which is why we should be concerned about the removal of one of the two remaining golf clubs in the bag.
	Page 117 of the White Paper on the future of air transport highlighted the obligation
	to put in place a scheme to address the problem of generalised blight resulting from the runway proposal.
	The stop Stansted expansion campaign highlighted BAA's disregard for that obligation, which has resulted in local communities around the airport, led by Takeley parish council, pursuing a legal challenge against BAA. It estimates that airport-related housing blight, resulting from plans to expand Stansted announced in July 2002, totals 635 million across Uttlesford district as a whole. According to analysis taken from the latest Land Registry house price statistics, the number of affected homes is about 12,000. However, BAA is prepared to consider compensation for only about 500 homes in the immediate vicinity affected by airport expansion.
	Any increase in night-time disturbance has the potential seriously to alter the value of someone's home, the most valuable asset that most people own. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, Trust us, or rather, You'll be okay at Heathrow until 2012, but the other designated airports must trust us, and people round Heathrow will have to trust us after 2012. The Lords were right to strike out subsection (2) and to reinstate the power to control numbers. I urge the House to support their verdict.

John McDonnell: I am not just disappointed with the Government's attitude towards Lords amendment No. 5; I am ashamed of it, because of the campaigns that I and a number of colleagues have waged over the years against night flights and their environmental impact on our constituents and on London overall. The only advantage of the amendment is that the debate allows me to miss the parliamentary Labour party meeting currently going on.
	The move to abolish the flight numbers restrictions stems from a concerted, well funded and lengthy lobby by the aviation industry to increase the number of night flights. Over a considerable period, aviation companies, BAA and others have plugged away at successive Ministers to achieve that end. The claim that the overall noise climate limit will be sufficient to protect people from noise disturbance is a disingenuous ploy to increase night flights.
	As we know from consultation, the industry is determined to increase the overall number of night flights. The argument is that the overall reduction in the noise climate will allow more night flights. The industry has mobilised for so long that it is bringing the issue to a head. But that argument fails to take account of how noise impacts on individuals and their familiesour constituents. The disturbance affects their sleep, their work, the education of their children and their environment. When a family gets up for breakfast, it does not usually discuss how good was the night before or what the level equivalent of decibels of effective perceived noise was. They usually say, Did you hear that one at 5 am?, or at 4 am or whenever. They discuss how it disturbed the children during the night and how the family has been disturbed over a long period.
	The noise disturbance is not related solely to aircraft in the sky. In my constituency, the impact for many residents comes from ground noisetraffic to and from the airport, with airport workers going to receive the night flights, the goods vehicles and the passengers travelling to and fro in their vehicles. Unfortunately, a vast proportion of that traffic still consists of cars and larger vehicles travelling through the areas surrounding Heathrow and through my constituency at night, disturbing the peace of residents.
	That is why the overall noise and movement limits, working together, offered at least some limited protection. I agree with what others have said across the House. Our ambition was to have no night flights at all, and we thought we would eventually be able to persuade a Government of the sense of it. The combination of overall limits and limits on numbers had some effect. The removal of the numbers will have a deleterious effect on my constituents because it will blight their environment and, as some have said, their properties for a long time to come. The delay to 2012 is no concession whatever. It is no compromise. It is probably dictated by the time that the Government need to implement the system effectively.
	Consultation is meaningless as some form of compromise offer to my constituents. We have been consulted so often on the development of the airport, and never listened to, that people are cynical about the entire concept. As hon. Members have said, in consultations over the past 30 years we have been promised no further terminals and no further runways. Ministers have raised in the House the issue of caps on movement, yet over time each proposal has been discarded.
	I cannot understand why the Government are going along with the idea. I cannot comprehend why they are flying in the face of popular opinion, as expressed by a vast range of the population of London and elsewhere. The only reason that I can believe is that the aviation industry has, yet again, been able to mount such an effective lobby that the Government have, again, conceded.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who says that if consultation is to be meaningful, the Government must listen. We know, of course, that the Government do listen. My concern is who they are listening to on this occasion. It is pretty clear that they have not been listening to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) or those of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).
	The Government have been listening to the airline operators. It is clear on this issue that the Department for Transport has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the airline industry. That is who the Government are listening tonot the people who are suffering from the disruption and whose lives and property prices are being blighted by the increase in airline movement at night.
	I shall not detain the House by rehearsing arguments already made. A numerical cap has one overall advantage: it is completely transparent and understandable. Concepts such as quotas or noise footprints, such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), are opaque. Nobody can have any confidence that such measures, once put in place, are properly observed. A numerical cap may have disadvantagesas my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, many communities living close to airports would rather there were no night flights at allbut it has the advantage of clarity.

Susan Kramer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no logic to the proposal that a particular set of limits should apply at Heathrow until 2012 and collapse thereafter? The aircraft fleet that flies in and out of Heathrow will be essentially the same for the next 20 years. There is no prospect of significantly quieter aircraft and therefore no logic for arguing for a change of regime six years from now.

Adam Afriyie: As I am the Member of Parliament for Windsor, thousands of my constituents live under flight paths, which is also true of many other hon. Members, and as a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill, I am aware of the sleight of hand contained in the legislation. As an advocate of reasonable measures to protect the environment for people living under flight paths and close to airports, I am pleased to speak in favour of Lords amendment No. 5. I am also pleased to have the chance to speak against Government amendment (a), which is not only illogical, but sneaky, unworkable and underhand; it seeks to remove protections and open up the night skies to a flight bonanza.
	Let us be clear that the frequency of noisy flights ruins the sleep of residents. The economic benefit associated with the use of airports for business activity is certainly desirable, and if air traffic needs to expand, perhaps we can allow for it in the long term with quieter aircraft, provided that air quality is kept within tight limits and access to airports is available. However, it is a sobering thought that our tourists spend 16 billion more abroad than incoming tourists spend visiting the UK, which is perhaps an issue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	The Civil Aviation Act 1982 empowered the Secretary of State to limit the number of flights at designated airports. A straightforward limit on the number of flights is easily understood by everyone; for example, 16 flights are currently allowed at Heathrow during the night period and, despite the disturbance, affected residents know what that limit means. If the noise associated with a particular flight is louder than 90 dB on the ground, people are likely to be rudely awakened. It is the noise created by individual aircraft combined with the number of flights during the night that disturbs residents' sleep.
	Government amendment (a) is strange. It proposes that at some future point the noise made by individual aircraft and the number of flights during the course of the night will be ignored. Instead, the Government want to rely on a complicated scheme based on average noise levels during a night period. Average noise levels have never woken anyone, because it is the absolute noise and frequency of flights that disturbs people. We must ask ourselves why the Government propose to scupper Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 11, which are sensible.
	Let us take a quick look at how the Government's scheme will operate. The night noise quota scheme ranks aircraft types according to their noisiness on take-off and approach for landing. For example, if the noise is above 101.9 dB, the quota count for that aircraft is assigned as 16. If the noise is between 99 dB and 101.9 dB, the quota count for that aircraft is halved and becomes eightthe scale is exponential. If the noise is between 96 dB and 98.9 dB, the quota count for that aircraft is halved again to four. The quota count continues until the noise level falls below 90 dB, when the aircraft is assigned a quota count of a halfI hope that hon. Members are still with me. The Secretary of State then sets a limit on the total quota count points for the average across a season or a night period, which translates into a number of flights. If we were to use the pure quota count system that the Government are seeking to introduce today, twice as many flights would be allowed at night with planes rated at 95 dB than with planes rated at 96 dB. The system is complicated, and complicated systems are often designed to hide simple truths.
	Why have the Government introduced an amendment to remove the flight limit, after indicating in writing to many hon. Members that they would support the Lords amendment? There is only one explanation, and I have heard no other so far: the Government want to allow an increase in the number of flights at night. As I have said, they have argued that the measure will not be introduced until 2012, but hon. Members should not be deceived. That is not a concession, because the arrangements until 2012 will be announced in the next week or so, and it is simply not possible for the Government to change that agreement before 2012. The Government are trying to appear reasonable by making a semi-concession, when they are in fact behaving completely unreasonablyit is a phantom concession.

Derek Twigg: I understand my hon. Friend's point about World Health Organisation standards. Let me consider that in more detail. I am surprised that it has taken so long for hon. Members to bring up those matters.
	The Government framed their proposed environmental objectives for each airport in the recent consultation on night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, taking as long-term targets the World Health Organisation's standards on the mitigation of noise and its Guidelines for Community Noise in respect of night noise. That approach to the World Health Organisation's guideline values for night noise is consistent with its recommendations. The guideline values on aircraft noise were recommended as long-term targets for improving health.
	The values are low, and it would therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve them in the short to medium term without draconian measures. I ask my hon. Friend to bear that in mind. However, the World Organisation did not propose that. It would not be feasible to reduce noise to such a level in urban or rural settings generally, and the World Health Organisation did not suggest that. We are committed to taking account of the guideline values, and we will do that over the 30-year time horizon of the air transport White Paper.
	We also support the World Health Organisation's conclusions about regular reviews and revisions to the guidelines as new scientific evidence emerges.

Derek Twigg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me while I finish this point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made an important point about the World Health Organisation's guidelines on night noise. We must remember how subjective people's judgments can be, and how important it is to address this issue while taking account of the economy and trying to strike the balance that I have been talking about.
	The WHO guideline values on aircraft noise were recommended as long-term targets for improving health, and the values are very low. We also support the WHO conclusions for regular reviews and revisions to the guidelines as new scientific evidence emerges. The guidelines also recommend that cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses should be considered when making management decisions relating to their implementation. The Government are carrying out this process as part of the regulatory impact assessment of the restrictions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington might find interesting.
	I want to return to the effect of the number of movements and of overall noise levels on disturbance. I know that hon. Members will want to hear the important points that I have to make on this matter, because of the concerns that they have raised this evening. It is worth emphasising that research has suggested that the incidence of sleep disturbance is especially associated with the loudest noise events, and in particular those that produce more than a 90 dB sound exposure level. The hon. Member for Windsor mentioned this issue before, saying that it was all very complicated and that he wanted a simple solution to the matter. However, the issue of disturbance is always complex, in that it affects different individuals in different ways. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that these matters have also been raised with me as a constituency MP, and I am well aware of the representations that can be made about them.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which other hon. Members have also raised. Different people have different noise thresholds, and that can also depend on whether they live close to the airport or further away. Flights come over my house, and I understand that this can be an issue.
	As I said a moment ago, research has suggested that the incidence of sleep disturbance is especially associated with the loudest noise events, and in particular those that produce more than a 90 dB sound exposure level. That measure expresses the level of a noise event as though all its energy were concentrated evenly in one second. It takes account of the duration of the sound and its intensity. A plot connecting points of equal sound exposure level from the departure or approach of a particular type of aircraftor an envelope of the twois known as a noise footprint. Hon. Members have already mentioned such footprints.
	The night noise insulation criterion that we have proposed as part of the consultation on night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports relates to the 90 dB sound exposure level footprint of the noisiest aircraft operating at each airport. Such noise insulation seeks to mitigate the impact of each flight, as do the noise quota limits, by encouraging the use of quieter aircraft[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North want to intervene on me?

Derek Twigg: I am very much aware that you have a great interest not only in this subject but in railways, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could talk about railways for a long time, but I am sure that you would not allow me to do that, although there are important issues that link railways and airports. The number of people using airports depends on the transport links to those airports, and I understand the importance of those links.
	The subject of sleep disturbance has been raised in previous debates on the Bill, and I want to put on record the Government's approach to the matter. We have undertaken a considerable amount of research into the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. The last major study commissioned by the Government, completed in 1992, concluded that high aircraft noise levels could awaken people, but that the likelihood of the average person having his or her sleep noticeably disturbed due to an individual aircraft noise event was relatively low. That research was carried out in 1992, and I am sure that hon. Members will have their own view about its relevance and accuracy today. However, when considering numbers of aircraft movements, it is important to bear in mind that modern aircraft are much quieter than their predecessors.

Derek Twigg: These amendments make two minor changes to the consultation requirement that subsection (5) of new section 38B places on the Secretary of State when proposing to make an order specifying an area within which a non-designated airport's noise control scheme shall apply.
	It has become apparent to us that although subsection (5) lists a number of specific statutory consultees, including the CAA, the operator of the airport, local authorities and organisations representing the interests of local people, the operators of aircraft that use the airport are not included on the list. The first[Interruption.]

Derek Twigg: The first of the amendments remedies that omission. It does so using the formulation,
	any body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of operators of aircraft using the aerodrome,
	which is used elsewhere in the Bill, specifically in clause 3, on page 4, in line 31. The latter amendment changes the reference to organisations representing the interests of local people, so that the same formulation is used consistentlythat such bodies are those,
	appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative,
	of those interests. The effect of the provisionthe requirement for the Secretary of State to consult bodies representing the interests of local peoplewill remain the same.

Derek Twigg: The Government gave notice of their intention to make these amendments to the Bill in a written statement by the Secretary of State for Transport on 21 November 2005, and wrote to Opposition spokesmen to explain their purpose.
	Lords amendment No. 8 inserts a new clause into the Bill, giving effect to the schedule on policing at airports inserted by amendment No. 12. The schedule amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 in relation to the policing of airports that have been designated under section 25 of the ActHeathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports. Recently, it became clear that we needed to clarify the relationship between security and policing activities at designated airports. Increased clarity on that point should prevent future disputes between airport managers and the police. It has also become clear that we need to design a robust mechanism for resolving any disputes that arise.
	The amendments to section 26 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 will define and clarify the relationship between the activities of an airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities. Our intention in doing so is to prevent disputes on that point and to ensure that the aerodrome manager and chief officer of police work closely together in protecting an airport. The amendments are in paragraph 3 of the schedule.
	Where an aerodrome has been designated under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, the manager of the aerodrome, the police authority and the chief officer of police will be required to enter into a police services agreement. The specific requirement is in new section 25B, which is inserted in the 1982 Act by paragraph 2 of the schedule. To remove any ambiguity over roles and responsibilities, the agreement should set out the level of policing services to be provided by the police, the amount to be paid for that policing by the airport manager and the facilities to be provided by him to the police. That is set out in section 25B(3). The specification of payments in the agreement may also include references to amounts paid to the police authority towards policing at the airport from sources other than the airport manager. We are thinking, for example, of Home Office grants that might be made to fund a particular initiative.
	The agreement will need to recognise that circumstances might change during the year. Section 25A(6) requires an agreement to include provisions that will allow it to be varied where there is a material change in circumstances. Before concluding an agreement, and to determine the appropriate level of policing services, the aerodrome manager and chief officer of police will be required to consult with the relevant stakeholders: those in receipt of directions under part 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, Customs officers and immigration officers. New section 25A provides for that consultation.
	Section 25A includes a delegated power for the Secretary of State to modify the consultation requirements, in subsection (4). Under new section 25A(5), the degree of parliamentary scrutiny prescribed is dependent on whether there is any controversy about such changes. I should note that new section 25A(6) was subsequently amended by the Lords on Report. That minor change for clarification, which does not alter the substance of the provisions, has been taken up in the version of the schedule that we are debating today.
	Where the partiesthe aerodrome manager, police authority and chief officer of policecannot reach an agreement because they disagree on a particular aspect such as the level of policing to be provided, or are in dispute over the terms, construction or operation of an agreement, the matter will be referred for determination by an independent expert or tribunal of experts. Paragraph 4 of the schedule therefore inserts new sections 29A to 29D into the Act. Under new section 29A(1), any of the three parties is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to set up the expert determination. The expert should be an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State for the particular dispute, and agreed by the aerodrome manager on one side and the police parties on the other. If the parties cannot agree, the Secretary of State will require each side to appoint an expert and those two experts to appoint a further panel member to act as chairman. New section 29B provides for those arrangements.

Patrick Mercer: I was going to intervene, but if the Minister has finished, I will make a quick response. I was interested in what he had to say, as much of it as there was.
	At a recent Transport Committee meeting, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) took evidence from Chief Superintendent Savill on this very point, who said:
	There are a number of the recommendations that we feel frustrated with as a police service. I think the overriding one would be that Sir John
	Wheeler
	wisely recommended the mechanism for what we call 'designating' an airport. 'Designating' is an expression where, through an Act of Parliament in 1974, there was an agreement with the airport operator that the chief officers of police can recover the cost of policing operations in the early 1970s.
	He continued:
	Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been increasing erosion of the principles whereby costs are recovered by police forces and I think that has led to a bit of a patchwork approach to aviation policing across the United Kingdom.
	I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I would also be interested to hear, if police reorganisations are going on at the moment, whether it would make sense to consider the policing and security aspects
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendment No. 11 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 11 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 12 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Alan Keen, Mr. Frank Roy and Derek Twigg; Derek Twigg to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Mr. Alan Campbell.] To withdraw immediately. Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Future EU Finances and Own Resources

Geoff Hoon: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5973/06, the Commission's revised Proposal for renewal of the Inter-institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, No. 6426/06, the Commission Contribution to the Inter-institutional Negotiations on the Proposal for renewal of the Inter-institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, and No. 7421/1/06, Draft Decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources (//EC, Euratom); and supports the Government's objective of securing agreement on the Inter-institutional Agreement for the 200713 Financial Perspective and the Own Resources Decision in line with the agreement reached by Heads of Government at the December European Council.
	The House will recall that in December 2005 the United Kingdom, in its capacity as President of the European Union, brokered an agreement on an EU budget that many said at the time would be impossible to deliver. In fact, the result was a comprehensive budget for the period between 2007 and 2013, known as the financial perspective.
	EU budget negotiations are inevitably complex, especially when they involve the challenge of doing a deal that works for all 25 EU member states. We were also working in the aftermath of a failed deal some six months earlier, and in the knowledge that there was a realistic prospect that if we did not secure a deal, it would hold up the development of the accession states and delay a budget agreement by up to two years. In the EU presidency, we were determined to agree a budget that would enable the European Union to deliver for its citizens in the areas where it adds real value, and to make good our commitments to the new accession states.

William Cash: I remember confronting the Minister across the Floor of the House many years ago in different circumstances. Does he agree that the Prime Minister was either severely mistaken or verging on being misleading when he referred to the amount that the taxpayer would have to find? Does he agree thatas the European commissioner has just announcedthe actual amount is 24 billion above the budget that the Prime Minister announced, which means that the British taxpayer will have to find an extra 2 billion and we will now contribute 44 billion to EU coffers over the next budget period? In other words, it was a mockery.

Geoff Hoon: That is not the case. I shall deal with those points in due course, but the deal is hugely successful for both the United Kingdom and the European Union. I think that ensuring that all the different elements were put in placenot least, in a European Union of 25 member states, a commitment to long-term reformas well as being fair to the new member states constitutes a tremendous success.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being party-political for a moment. His party strongly supports enlargement, and I should have expected it to show equally strong support for the willing of resources to allow that enlargement to be successful. That is precisely what this deal does.

David Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept the figures for the five complete years between 2000 and 2004, which show that Britain's net contribution to European institutions was some 4.6 billion a year, and that, in the seven years of this deal, the contribution will be some 10.6 billion? Is that not a very substantial rise, and is he happy that the budget's make-up reflects the EU's priorities? In most areas of life and in most organisations in societies and economies, large budgets are shaped to reflect the priorities of such organisations. However, this is still substantially an agricultural budget, is it not?

John Bercow: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities, and I hope that we find the exchanges with him on these matters every bit as stimulating as his leadership of the House and of the business statement repertory company. Assuming that he welcomes and endorses the Commission's contribution to the institutional negotiations on the budget agreement, does he think it practical to hold out a realistic prospect of the EU's accounts being signed offfor onceby the European Court of Auditors?

Geoff Hoon: I recognise the historical difficulties associated with being positive about that aspect of EU finances. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I hold out a realistic prospect of dealing with this issue. I am always hopeful, but the member states and the EU institutions need to work together to deal with fraud, in particular, which has been a problem for many years, largely because we have not had the necessary co-ordination between institutions and member states. I am confident that the co-operation that we have seen in recent timesnot least in agreeing this budgetwill lead in that direction, so, yes, I am hopeful, but at the moment, no, there is no realistic prospect hope of achieving the aim that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
	The budget agreed in December has four key elements. First and crucially, it supports economic development in central and eastern Europea cause that the United Kingdom has consistently championed, and for which we should rightly pay on the same basis as others. The agreement provides an unprecedented transfer of receipts to the poorest member states of central and eastern Europe. Such transfers will provide the basis for economic development in those member states, making them and the EU more prosperous. Secondly, the rebate remains on all expenditure except economic development in the new member states. Thirdly, the total rebate over the next financial perspective will actually be larger than in the current period.
	Fourthly, the December agreement is fair. For the first time in the history of our membership of the EU, we have rough parity with France and Italy in terms of net contributions. I repeat: at every stage of the negotiation, this Government made it clear, here and in Brussels, that the UK abatement remains fully justified because of our disproportionately low level of EU receipts. Without the abatement, the UK would have paid, net, 10 times as much as Italy and 13 times as much as France over the last decade. It is therefore absolutely right that under the agreement reached in December, the UK abatement remains and will in fact be worth more than in the current budgetary period.
	It is also important, however, that the UK pays its fair share of the costs of enlargement in return for the economic, political and social benefits that enlargement brings. That is why we agreed that spending on economic development in the new member states could gradually be disapplied from the abatement calculation from 2009. But we were also clear that the UK would not pay more than its fair share, which is why the UK abatement will be applied in full on all expenditure in the 15 original member states, and on CAP expenditure everywhere in the EU.
	Overall, under the December agreement, the UK will go from paying two and a half times more than France and Italy over the last decade to paying roughly the same, net, as those countries as a proportion of national income, for the first time since we joined the EU. That is a good and fair result for the UK and, indeed, for our EU partners. Agreement on the budget deal is only the beginning of a process to ensure that the EU has a more rational and logical budget that more effectively supports the EU's longer-term aims. This Government's arguments in favour of budget discipline have resulted in agreement to an effective and controlled budget that focuses on the EU's priorities. Overall, expenditure as a share of EU income will fall to some 1 per cent. by 2013the lowest level in 20 years. Yet within this disciplined budget, sufficient funding is guaranteed across the range of the Union's priorities, such as competitiveness, research and development, freedom, security and justice, and development assistance.
	The package agreed under the UK presidency also contains a number of modernising elements. It offers member states the opportunity to shift money from CAP direct payments and market support to rural development, and creates a globalisation adjustment fund to help re-skill workers who lose out as a result of structural economic change. Furthermore, the agreement provides for a fundamental review of all aspects of the budget, on the basis of the Commission's 200809 report, on which the Council can take immediate decisions. That sets the path towards a modern budget fit for the 21st century that responds to the challenges of globalisation.
	Since December, negotiations have continued between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council on an inter-institutional agreement for the next financial perspective. This is a usual feature of the EU's multi-annual budget process, and it is necessary for the expenditure side of the December deal to come into effect. That debate continues the parliamentary procedure to endorse the IIA. The Government's prime objective in the IIA negotiation has been to ensure that it retains the main elements, and therefore the main benefits, of the December deal. The EU institutions reached provisional agreement on a new package last month. Overall, that agreement meets the Government's objectives and, subject to the agreement of this House, should establish the spending priorities agreed in December. It is due to be formally approved by EU Ministers on 15 May.
	Under the provisional agreement, the basic structure of the expenditure side is maintained, with an additional 2 billion of expenditure within the financial perspective ceiling and a further 2 billion of expenditure outside the financial perspective. Such additional funding is broadly comparable with the level agreed in the context of the 1999 IIA negotiation, and it will be set aside for priority areas supported by this Government, such as competitiveness and external action. It will result in an overall expenditure ceiling of 864 billion over the seven-year period.

Future EU Finances and Own Resources

Graham Brady: Absolutely not. I am delighted to welcome another former Minister for Europe to the debate, but the Prime Minister's speech to the European Parliament at the outset of the British presidency made it clear that a better deal could be obtained, and that was his objective. However, it was not secured.
	The EU budget is rising. The common agricultural policy has not only gone without fundamental reform, but is actually getting bigger. According to last December's joint report from the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsthen under the leadership of the new Foreign Secretarythe CAP will leave the EU economy some 100 billion poorer over the next financial perspective 20072013, with a further 100 billion cost to consumers every year, in a combination of taxes and inflated food prices. That amounts to an average cost for a family of four of around 950 a year, and that cost will be far higher for families in the UK, as a major net contributor.

Graham Brady: I am delighted to hear that south Wales will do well from the funding, but the hon. Gentleman must be awareas we all should bethat it is British taxpayers' money; it is simply being recycled through EU institutions, losing administrative costs meanwhile. It would be far more efficient, as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes too, to pay the money directly, and I do not see why we cannot look into doing that instead.
	Given all those issues, no wonder the Prime Minister identified the urgency of reform, but how shocking that reform has not been addressed. Not only did the Prime Minister fail to secure real reform of the CAP, but having linked the future of the British rebate to that reform he gave up 7 billion of the rebate while getting nothing in return. That 7 billion alone is equivalent to the total annual budget for policing in England and Wales.
	The surrender on the rebate is only a small part of the increased cost to British taxpayers, however; the net cost of our payments to the EU will increase by far more. At present, we pay in about 2.8 billion a year more than we get out. Under the deal agreed in December, that net cost almost doubles to 5.5 billion every year. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) pointed out, those funds do not always go to the most deserving places. Under the new financial perspective, we will pay in a fifth more than the French, but we shall get back only half as much. Per capita EU spending in the UK will be a quarter of the figure in Ireland and will be lower than in any of the other, soon to be 27, member states.
	Remarkably, the expensive new Foreign Office booklet, Guide to the European Union, which cost taxpayers a further 80,000 to produce, notes that the existing net cost is 3 billion a year[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is clutching his copy, so at least somebody was waiting for it to arrive on their doormat.
	The booklet makes no mention, however, of the fact that the cost is set to double from 2007.

William Cash: Is not it the case, as significant media coverage suggested at the time, that the Chancellor was actually not consulted about the final deal? Furthermore, he will be handed a poisoned chalice, if of course he ever manages to get hold of it.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is also interesting to students of Kremlinology that the Chancellor's other representative on earth was the previous Minister for Europe, but I am not sure what the significance of all those movements is. Thankfully, that is a matter for others.
	Everything I have described was clear in December, when it looked as though the Prime Minister had managed to reach the worst possible deal for Britain, but the picture has grown steadily worse since, with British Ministers giving away their strongest cards, apparently powerless to stop a further collapse in our negotiating position. In February, the then Minister for Europe submitted an explanatory memorandum that set out the Government's approach to the negotiation of the inter-institutional agreement, stating their priority that the agreement
	fully reflects the deal reached in December
	and that,
	the Government will strongly oppose any proposals during the negotiation of an agreement to increase the overall expenditure ceiling . . . given the delicate nature of the compromise reached in December, the Government does not see the scope for re-allocation of spending between different expenditure headings.
	However, despite the Government's supposedly strong opposition, the European Parliament was able to push through a further 2.68 billion increase in the budget last month and, as has already been mentioned, the Budget Commissioner has suggested that the picture is actually worse than had previously been acknowledged due to the fact that a further 24 billion in various financial instruments is being accounted for outside the EU budget total.
	To make matters worse, the British Treasury has changed the way in which it presents payments to the EU, making it impossible to make direct comparisons between past and future years. Given that The Sunday Times reported a source saying of the EU Budget deal that
	The Treasury is quietly fuming . . . we have ended up giving away much more than we expected and with precious little to show for it in return ,
	the changes in the presentation of the figures may be to cover the Government's embarrassment.

Graham Brady: Like my hon. Friend, I am afraid that I cannot explain it, but I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can.
	The escalation of EU budgets and the continuing expansion of the CAP are an even greater cause for concern, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has pointed out, we are approaching the shameful 12th year for which the EU Court of Auditors has been unable to sign off the European Union's accounts as reliable and free of fraudagain a massive opportunity missed by the British presidency when this country could have insisted on proper financial controls before a new budget, let alone a bigger budget, was agreed. Instead of the root and branch reform of accounting practices that is needed, the IIA simply assures us that
	the Budget will be implemented in a context of sound financial management based on the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, proportionality of administrative costs
	and so on.
	There is no recognition of the scale of concern about the EU's existing budget. There is no apparent understanding of the profound lack of confidence that people feel as to whether their money is being used as it should be. In the European Parliament a year ago, the Prime Minister struck a visionary note. He said:
	In my time as Prime Minister, I have found that the hard part is not taking the decision, it is spotting when it has to be taken.
	He may have said the same to the parliamentary Labour party this evening. He continued:
	It is understanding the difference between the challenges that have to be managed and those that have to be confronted and overcome. This is such a moment of decision for Europe.
	The Prime Minister was right: the British presidency was a remarkable opportunity to confront the things that are wrong with the EUthe growing budget, the common agricultural policy, the lack of adequate financial controlsbut all those chances were missed, leaving no one very impressed. The German press said that the Prime Minister had
	started the British Presidency as a tiger and finished as a doormat.
	President Chirac was reported as telling friends presciently that the presidency could not perform effectively until the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
	resolve the crisis of leadership and one of them comes out on top.
	Even the former Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), voiced his disquiet with the way things were going when he told The Daily Telegraph:
	Even out and out pro-Europeans like me could not accept a one-sided deal that only moves on the rebate. That would be very difficult to get through.
	Well, a one-sided deal is what we have before us.
	The British people want a European Union that does less and costs them less; they want to get rid of an agricultural policy that costs their families 1,000 a year in higher food prices and all their instincts of fairness want rid of a system that puts the interests of wealthy farmers in France ahead of those of poor farmers in the developing world. Last June, the Prime Minister set out to secure a deal that would achieve all that. Instead, he agreed to the opposite, and the papers before the House this evening describe that failure: a deal that leaves the EU's accounts unreformed, that sees the CAP secure for a further six years and that will cost British taxpayers more while giving them nothing in return.
	Members have a choice this evening either to endorse failure or to send a signal that they really want to represent the interests of their constituents and that they expect a British Government to work for real reform in Europe and to fight for the interests of British taxpayers. It is a chance for hon. Members to show that we are in touch with the views of our constituents, even if the Prime Minister is not.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman says that whatever the Prime Minister does in the EU, so it is not a surprise.
	I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe back to a job that he did so well. I succeeded him as Minister for Europe. This is not a bid for his job. He was there for three months. I knew that he would come back, so I left his telephone in exactly the same position he left it in, with the same numbers on the speed dial. I know that he will find that his return to that post will enable him to push forward the European agenda.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the work that he did in that post. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) believes that my right hon. Friend was responsible for scuppering the European constitution. I do not for one moment believe that he did so. He conducted himself extraordinarily well during the presidency, as the did my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary, now Leader of the House. It is important that a real heavyweight has the job of Minister for Europe. As I said in my letter to The Times today, I believe that we should go one step further and have a dedicated ministry for European affairs within the Foreign Office, with a Cabinet Minister of the stature of my right hon. Friend, so that we can continue to monitor the EU and hold it accountable for its work.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because I have enormous respect for the way in which he campaigns on third world poverty, and I agree that the issue must be resolved. I do not believe that we could have resolved it during our presidency. It takes longer than six months to resolve such fundamental issues, but we need to ensure as we continue to campaign on European issues that we put matters right, because it is inappropriate in this day and age to spend so much basically propping up French agriculture at the expense of farmers not just over the rest of the EU, but in the third world.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the new document published on 5 May. It does not have to be reprinted, because it does not contain a photograph of the last Minister for Europe, although I made sure, when I was Minister for Europe, that my photograph was included in the documents. I think that it contains a photograph of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on page 30at least, the back of his headand he appears to be entering some kind of starship on the way to another planet, although I do not want to be nasty to him, because he will celebrate his birthday, I think, on Wednesday, while the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will, incidentally, celebrate his on Tuesday. Today is Schuman day, when members of the European Commission can have the day offit is a public holiday. I am not suggesting that we should have a public holiday for the birthday of the hon. Member for Stone, but I am making a serious point. The document is important, because it is absolutely vital that we explain to the British public what happens not only to the money that the Government spend, but to the money that the EU spends.

Philip Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman not think the pattern of events extraordinary? Each year, the Court of Auditors refuses to sign off the European Union accounts and, each year, the British Government give more and more money to the European Union. Does he not think it quite extraordinary for any Government or body to give more and more money to an organisation where the accounts cannot be signed off?

Daniel Kawczynski: I must pick up the hon. Gentleman on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) about the huge subsidies that the European Union uses to block free and fair trade with the rest of the world. My hon. Friend and I attended the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong in December and, as a British delegate, I felt deeply embarrassed by the number of African and Asian delegates who came to see me who were absolutely appalled at the way in which the European Union was behaving. When is the European Union going to address that?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman asks me the question as though I speak for the European Unionof course I do not. When British Ministers go to summit meetings or have meetings with their colleagues in the European Union, they do what is in the best interests of this country, as they have done for the past 20 years, whatever their party. That is what our Ministers do at the moment, as they did under previous Administrations. It is important that we continue to campaign on those points.
	The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the importance of the deal entered into during the negotiations under our presidency. He makes a lot of his Polish origins. I have read some of his speeches, but not all of them. He frequently tells the House how important it is that his family came from Poland and that he lives in the United Kingdom, where he was born. That reminds me of the importance that we placed on enlargement. We agreed the deal last December because we are the champions of enlargement. We could not have been left in a position where the new member states that joined on 1 May 2004 could not fund the enlargement process.
	The hon. Gentleman will know from the opinion poll that has just been published that support for the European Union has declined among the people of Europe. I think that it is down to 39 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West will think that that is because of the tenure of a former Minister for Europe, but it is a major problem. In a country such as Latvia, which has just joined, the approval rating is down to 29 per cent. That is a pretty sad state of affairs. It means that we have not effectively communicated with the people of Europe about the benefits of their country being in the European Union. That is why publications such as the one that I mentioned are important and why it is important that we spend money on such publications, even if they include a back-of-the-head photograph of the hon. Member for Stone.

Keith Vaz: That may be so. My hon. Friend has a very principled position on these issues. He wants to withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU[Interruption.] I am not sure whether that agreement came from the Conservative Front Bench and represents official party policy. My hon. Friend wants to withdraw

Keith Vaz: I know that my hon. Friend is speaking in the blunt Glasgow tones that he has always used, but we have stuffed nobody's mouth with gold. The deal was the one that we entered into as the champions of enlargement. [Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), another former Minister for Europe, has just entered the Chamberwe have a former Ministers for Europe club here. Like me, and all who have occupied the position, he pushed the enlargement agenda forward. Many countries wanted to prevent enlargement, as we know from the fact that, even during the presidency, there was an attempt to prevent the opening of negotiations with Turkey. Various deals were done to ensure that that happened.
	We did drive the process forward and should be proud of the new countries that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, because contrary to what Members on the Conservative Front Bench have saidI do not hold the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) responsible because she was not an MP at the time, but I do hold the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West responsiblethere has not been chaos or a shambles. Conservative Front-Bench Members predicted that those who came to this country following 1 May 2004 would clog up our benefits system, but the latest report from Ernst and Young suggests that the arrival of people from the new member statespeople similar to the ancestors of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski)has benefited the British economy.

Keith Vaz: I will not give way because I have been generous in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	Negotiations on budget deals are extraordinarily difficult, and I think that the Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and the former Minister for Europe deserve our thanks for ensuring that there was a deal. Whatever the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West says from the Front Bench, there nearly was not a deal, and that would have left the European Union in crisis. The deal was the best that we could get, based on the information available and what the Prime Minister could get out of other countries, because such things are all a question of negotiation.
	The way to ensure that there is more wealth in Europe to be shared among the 25 countriesor 27 countries, if Romania and Bulgaria join next year or the year afteris by meeting the criteria set down in Lisbon in 2000. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will no doubt tell us when he winds up, we have made enormous progress on the Lisbon agenda. The latest report by the Centre for European Reform, which was published only two weeks ago, showed that we are now the fourth-best performing country in Europe as far as the benchmarks for the Lisbon agenda are concerned. However, we heard no praise from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, just criticisms about failure and an ability to push forward the reform agenda. France and Germany are eighth and ninth. We have met our targets on employment and are meeting our targets in other areas. The way in which we can ensure that Europe will be more prosperous is not necessarily by taking more money from the countries of the European Union, but by ensuring that we meet the targets set out at Lisbon. If the whole European Union becomes richer and we ensure that we meet our employment targets and that people have jobs in the European Union, the freedom of movement that is essential to the way in which Europe progresses will enable us to make sure that there is even more money available to spend on areas such as south Wales, where my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) is keen to receive European funds to regenerate his constituency.
	Let us be honest, fair and truthful on European finance. The deal was the best that we could negotiate in the circumstances. We made the deal because we are the champions of enlargement. If we had failed to do so, the enlargement process would have halted and those countries that, in good faith, relied on our leadership would have been left with less money than was promised. I commend the Government on the deal and hope very much that we will continue to push forward the reform agenda so that we can address the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham and the agricultural policy, which is in need of absolute reformno Labour Member pretends otherwise. The deal was important at that stage. Let us now move forward with the economic agenda in the future.

Vincent Cable: It is slightly scary to discover that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is monitoring our birthdays. I will be pleasantly surprised if I wake up in the morning and find that my family is as well informed as him.
	I slightly regret that the Minister for Europe is not in the Chamber, because I was planning to say something nice about him. It is probably going a little too far to say that he merits our congratulations on his appointment, but we certainly wish him well. As the hon. Member for Leicester, East quite properly said, the Minister for Europe has an important job, so it is important that it is held by a senior Minister and, moreover, someone with a long and commendable pedigree on European affairs. To that extent, I welcome the Minister to his role.
	Speaking as a former member of the diplomatic service, however, there is one thing about the Minister's appointment that has saddened me. The diplomatic service is one of the few Government departments that is not seriously dysfunctional, yet it has suffered the fate, a bit like Caesar's Gaul, of being divided into three parts. Development was taken out, and now the department has been split into Europe and non-Europe. A perfectly efficient department has been split, while the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions continue on their merry way. That is a strange way of managing government.
	I approach the European Union and its finances from a very different perspective from that of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I basically believe that the European Union is good for the UK, but I agree with his conclusions on the subject of our debate. The deal was very bad, and that came about because the Government utterly failed to secure their negotiating objectives. As I understood it, and as was clearly stated on many occasions, the objective was to make concessions on the budget rebate to secure fundamental reform of the way in which the European Union's funding was run, especially on agriculture. That was not achievedindeed, it was not even begun to be achieved. None the less, the objective was right.
	It was equally right for the Government to say that to support the process of enlargement, we needed to make concessions on the rebate. The enlargement has so far been a success. It is now difficult to believe that 15 years ago, the enlargement countries were communist countries. Enlargement is a success story, with rapid growth and liberalisation in stable democracies. It has been successful in much the same way as the expansion of Europe to absorb the former fascist countries of southern Europe was successful. We need to reinforce that success, and we could have done so through the budget process. It would be utterly wrong to continue to defend an arrangement under which we were net recipients from eastern Europe. The Government were therefore right to set themselves the negotiating objective of trading off the rebate against fundamental reform.
	There were, however, two failures. Saying that the rebate was non-negotiable throughout most of last year was a presentational failure, as it was clearly negotiable and was, in fact, being negotiated. That position therefore did not make sense, and the Government made themselves look foolish. There was a substantive failure to achieve anything concrete or measurable in agricultural reform. The reason for that goes back three years to the agreement between France and Germany, which Britain apparently endorsed, to settle the European agricultural budget and agricultural policy until 2013.
	Historians will be taxed by the question of why the Government accepted that arrangement because, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and colleagues with different points of view have argued, the common agricultural policy is utterly indefensible. It is economic nonsense, it is environmentally damaging, and it does enormous damage to world trade and to developing countries. However, in 2002 the British Government, for whatever reasonperhaps they took their eye off the ball because they were preoccupied with Iraqaccepted an arrangement that cemented the CAP in place.

Vincent Cable: Some of them did. There was a mixed pattern of opinion in the EU, but eastern European countries wanted to secure the best deal possible. It is difficult to understand why, having failed to secure a renegotiation of the CAP in 2002, the British Government sailed into negotiations in the belief that they could unpick the whole package. It was clear, however, that the French and the Germansthe French, in particular, were the villains of the piecewould not agree to it.
	This is not just an argument about recent history, as it has contemporary relevance. We understand from Mr. Mandelson and others that World Trade Organisation negotiations are in serious trouble because of the rigidity of the EU view on agriculture and its unreformability. The British Government's position is not only damaging but ridiculous, because they have absolutely no negotiating power whatever. Because they signed the agreement in December, and because they did not leave it open, they must accept the lowest possible negotiating position that other European countries adopt on trade policy.

William Cash: I, too, am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It was only a short time ago that his party strongly supported the European constitutional treaty. That is not yet disposed of. Everything that we are discussing now is embedded in the existing treaties, which are rolled into the new constitutional treaty, which the Liberal Democrat party strongly supported. It is inconsistentto be blunt, absurdfor the hon. Gentleman to continue his argument on that basis.

Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept my view that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and some of his colleagues were being a trifle harsh in speaking to him in that way? Surely they should welcome the sinner that repents. Any indication from the Liberals that they are prepared to speak up for Britain against the grab by the EU is greatly to be welcomed. Will the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) give us a commitment that he and his party will vote against the budget, which he described as a bad deala very, very bad deal?

Vincent Cable: We certainly intend to vote against the motion this evening; I have no problem with that. There is no question of the sinner that repenteth. We are the only party that has consistently supported British membership of the European Union and consistently supported constructive negotiations to improve its workingunlike colleagues on both sides. Conservative Members were fervent supporters of the EU under an earlier Prime Minister, and then revolted against it. Labour Members were passionately anti-European and have now, with a few exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), become largely sympathetic to it. We have been consistent throughout.

Vincent Cable: I did not say that that was a desirable outcome. We are dealing with second best. If a postponement was necessary to achieve a better overall negotiation, that would surely have been rightbut we wanted to see a resolution. We want to see the European Union move forward, support for the east European countries and reform of the CAP. That is common ground. Members on both sides are enjoying scoring points, but there is a high degree of consensus on that matter.
	On the forward-looking items, I agree with the Minister that it is important to have tougher audit constraints in place, and that it is a disgrace that the European Commission has been able to get away with unaudited accounts for many years. Nobody would try to defend that. By way of mitigation, I point out that some UK Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, have an audit trail that makes the European Commission look positively efficient. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate criticism to be made, and it is right that tighter procedures should be put in place.

Vincent Cable: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by more and more money. Spending has slightly exceeded the 1 per cent. formula, but not by very much, so we are discussing a consistent pattern of spending. Of course, there needs to be audit control at the level of both national Governments and the Commission.
	The second item that will repay more attention than hon. Members have so far given it is one of the new innovations in the European budgetthe globalisation fund. At first sight it is an attractive idea, and it may prove to be a useful innovation, if it heads off some of the European countries that are moving in the direction of economic nationalism. If the measure persuades those countries to be less protectionist by providing funding for worker retraining, it is surely desirable, but we must be a little bit cautious.
	There have been attempts to set up trade adjustment funds in different countries over the past 30 years. I conducted some work on that point in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with particular regard to the United States, where a similar fund was set up in the mid-1970s. That fund ran into all kinds of problems, not least because some workers asked, Why should people be compensated because of trade competition, whereas other workers who have suffered from technological change or a collapse in markets should not be compensated? The political problems and problems of equity that arose were serious. There was some extremely unhelpful gaming behaviour, whereby industrial pressure groups secured trade protection in order to negotiate it off against money from the trade adjustment fund, and it is possible to envisage that kind of behaviour creeping into the European Union. The globalisation fund needs to be watched careful, although on balance it should be given an opportunity to prove itself.

Vincent Cable: If the fund were part of state aid, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I understand that the new fund is specifically to help the labour force, rather than to help companies reinvest or otherwise protect themselves against competition. If that is the case, it is difficult to see how it could have the negative effects implied by the hon. Gentlemanbut it remains to be seen whether it works as a support for adjustment or against adjustment.
	There is one more element of spending about which some questions need to be asked. There is a lot of enthusiasm in the Commission, particularly from the President and othersagain, the enthusiasm has been generated for the best of reasonsto set up a European science university as part of the move towards support for integration in the world economy. I support that principle, but last week I participated in an Adjournment debate on science in British universities, and it is clear that British universities are at best sceptical about the concept, because although they have funding problems of their own, they are looking to collaborate across the world, in particular with the United States. They are also interested in securing a better funding formula in the UK, and see little advantage in having a specifically European project concerned with science. At some stage, we need to hear a fuller justification of how the new initiative will add value.
	We shall oppose the motion, because we feel that the fundamental negotiating objectives were not achievedalthough, as I have stressed throughout, we are and always have been a pro-European party. We want the European Union project to succeed, and the best way to make it succeed is to ensure that agriculture and the other defective features of the European Union are fundamentally reformed.

Angus Robertson: Given that the hon. Gentleman is considering agriculture, will he take the opportunity briefly to mention fisheries? The fleets of Norway or the Faroe islands manage to fish the same waters and sustain fisheries but UK policy, supported by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, of remaining in the common fisheries policy will mean a disaster for our coastal communities.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman was just ahead of me. I was coming to that point but perhaps he makes it more eloquently than me. I fear that there is no sea fishing in Luton, but I have a view about the common fisheries policy and the hon. Gentleman is right. I am a member of the Norway group and I recently visited that country. I asked whether the Norwegians genuinely wanted to include their fishing waters in the EU CFP because they would have few fish left after a few years. We must restore fisheries to member states and get rid of the nonsensical CFP. Having landlocked countries voting on the CFP is to our disadvantage because we have the largest coast line.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the road towards repatriating fishing and, indeed, agriculture, is taken by rejecting the budget so that we can place road blocks in the way of further accretion of power to the centre as a prelude to rolling powers back to individual countries?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. I would have thought that other member states felt that. In fact, they are becoming more aware of it. As enthusiasm for the EU declines, people want to assert their independent democratic rights without being nationalistic. The problem with the current arrangement is that it is likely to increase the unpleasant sort of nationalism because people feel that their democracy is somehow being weakened. To decide as free member states, confident in their democracy, to work voluntarily with other member states, is a recipe for genuine co-operation and internationalism. That would remove or at least reduce the amount of unpleasant nationalism that exists in member states, including Britain to some extent. There are dangers in such nationalism, as we know from European history.
	Let us consider what happened in December. Britain was guilt-tripped into doing a deal because, without it, the poorer, newer member states would be disadvantaged. They are disadvantaged because the budget is overwhelmingly dominated by agriculture spending in richer member states. We should simply have a budget arrangement without the CAP and the CFP.
	Aid policy, too, should be repatriated because it is inefficiently managed in Europe and goes to the wrong places. We do well on aid and have a good reputation and we could even operate on an agency basis for the EU through the Department for International Development. That would be much better than operating through the EU. Nevertheless, we could have an agreement to spend a proportion of our gross domestic product on aid but to administer it ourselves or on an agency basis, without going through the European Commission, which is notoriously inefficient in administering it.
	We were guilt-tripped into the decision about the newer member states. However, if all the other aspects of the budget were reduced or eliminated, we could have a budget that could be administered in an absolutely fair way. Contributions and receipts could be exactly proportional to the levels of prosperity in the different member states. The rich states could pay in according to their prosperity, and the poorer ones would derive benefit from the budget according to their relative poverty. That would be a fair and moral way of implementing a redistributive budget. The fiscal transfers would be precisely fair. I might even suggest that it would be a socialist approach, involving redistribution from the rich to the poor. I would be very happy indeed with such an arrangement.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman talks about the state aid that we have given through the budget to poorer eastern European countries such as Poland. Does he agree, however, that the British private sector has also invested a great deal in those countries over the past decade? I only have to travel through downtown Warsaw to see that many of the new business set-ups have been funded by British capital investment.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Governments of both colours talk about exports rather than about the balance of trade. The concept of exports net of imports is very different from that of exports alone. Exports increasing by 1 or 2 per cent. a year might sound splendid, but if imports are increasing by 5 per cent. a year at the same time, it would create a big deficit, which would not be particularly advantageous. We should look at trade balances, rather than simply at exports.
	That also says something about the level of a country's currency, relative to other currencies. One of the reasons why I believe that we should retain our own currency is that it enables us to have a sensible macro-economic policy and to adjust our currency to an appropriate level. That is necessary for trade.
	As I was saying, we were guilt-tripped into the decision to go for this budget. It was suggested that, without agreement on it, we would somehow deprive the less fortunate newer member states of the European Union, but in fact the people who went laughing all the way to the bank afterwards were the rich countries that benefit most from the common agricultural policy. The full CAP benefits do not accrue to the newer member states, because they are being tapered in over several years. So the CAP budget is still going to the richer member states that have larger agricultural sectors, such as Denmark, Ireland and France. Those countries arguably have higher living standards than ours; they are certainly very prosperous. And good luck to themI am very pleased that they are, but we should not subsidise them to the disbenefit of the poorer member states of the European Union.
	My final point about net contributions has perhaps already been made. Our net contributions have multiplied substantially in the deal and, according to calculations from Global Britain, we will contribute net more than 10 billion a year for the next seven years. If that money was simply going to the poorer nations of Europe, there might be an arguable case for providing it. However, it is not, and 10 billion is a significant sum. It is roughly 12 times the deficit in the NHS this year and 10 times more than we would have to pay for free long-term care, in which I passionately believe. Such a sum would enable every pensioner in Britain to have a 20 a week increase in the basic state pension. Although 10 billion as a proportion of GDP may not be that much, it is a lot of money if one considers it in terms of what it could provide.
	If we reduced our net contribution to a level that was appropriate to help the poorer member states of Europe on a moral and socialist basis, that would be fine. However, our net contribution is too big and there are other things in our country that we should spend the money on, such as redistribution to the poor. We still have significant poverty in Britain, particularly among the elderly, and I would like to see an increase in the basic state pension that could be paid for by cutting our contribution. There are better things that we could do with our money.
	In short, we still have to campaign for the abandonment of the CAP and the common fisheries policy and for structural fund spending to be used to redistribute income to the poorer member states, and we should let them decide what to spend the money on rather than having that determined in Brussels. The aid budget should be repatriated and, in future, we should focus on redistributing simply according to the relative degrees of poverty and prosperity in the European Union. That is the way forward for a friendly, co-operative and truly internationalist Europe.

William Cash: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins).
	I am sorry that the Minister for Europe is no longer present, and has not been present for some time. When he opened the debate, we recalled that we were the main protagonists in the debates on the Maastricht treaty back in the early 1990s. He was a new Member of Parliament and the late John Smith gave him the job for the Labour party of dealing with the nuts and bolts of the treaty. I tabled about 150 amendments and, because in those days we did not have extravagant parliamentary devices, at least on the scale that we have now, we were able to force debates, and we did so resolutely. I pick out my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as a veteran of those days, and many would say that we set out a series of arguments that have proved to be correct.
	By all accounts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not consulted when the deal went through in December. I said that he had been passed a poisoned chalice, because the money has to be found from somewhere and I have already given the details of the considerable increase that has occurred since December. The European commissioner has made that increase public and, as the European Scrutiny Committee report demonstrates, it far exceeds the amount that the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom and other member states would contribute. The sum is so significant that one might say that it smacked of massive incompetence and that he did not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know the full details.
	Let us consider the appointment of the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls)he was here at the beginning of the debate, and I am missing him nowto the position of Economic Secretary. He is an alleged Eurosceptic who has continuously put arguments in various publications and given indications to suggest that he is dissatisfied with the way in which the European Union is functioning, but he has been given a job of great responsibility. I say with respect to the Paymaster General that it is a great pity that the Economic Secretary is not replying to the debate. Just as in those days of the Maastricht treaty when I found myself in a considerable alliance with the late Peter Shore, who performed a noble service to the House over many decades, I wondered whether the disagreements between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not, on close inquiry, turn out to be based on a difference of opinion with regard to the European Union and its financial management. After all, it is the five economic tests imposed by the Chancellor, which reputedly came from some of the ideas of the new Economic Secretary, that laid down the basis on which we were not, to all intents and purposes, to go into the euro.
	I think that a deeper question lies at the heart of the debate: which way are the Government going to go in respect of the future financial management of the EU as seen through the eyes of the British Treasury? It has been badly burned and cannot afford to pay for the public services or to perform the functions that the EU has been given without massive taxation. There is, therefore, a deeper problem.
	It is a failed systeman undemocratic and unaccountable systemthat we are debating. It is a system that has been rejected by some of the other countries. The financial management and economic management implicit in the Maastricht treaty is the basis on which the European constitution was defeated. Contrary to what was stated at the time, it was not simply because President Chirac had become unpopular; it was actually because the policies that were being pursued in respect of European Union treaties had made President Chirac so unpopular. That is why there were riots in the streets and why the French people turned on their own Government. They did so because of a sense of disillusionment. They were told that they were going to get a good deal and then discovered that they were getting an extremely bad one because of the massive unemployment that followed in the wake of the pursuit of European economic management and European directives, in particular with respect to the contract, which had to be abandoned. The Government wanted to make economic reforms and they could not. Angela Merkel is attempting to make economic reforms in Germany, but she cannot. The bottom line is that the whole of the EU is not merely creaking, but collapsing and imploding. The consequences are severe.
	The beneficiary of those policies is the far right. The Eurobarometer poll shows that the EU is even more unpopular in Austria than it is in the UK. There is a reason for that.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 100 billion plus in today's money that this Government have given to the European Union is one of the reasons we are seeing the rise of the extreme right?

William Cash: I am bound to agree. It is a tragedy, because we need a balance. Co-operation is one thing, but appeasement is another.
	I was disturbed to discover that the motion, despite being merely a take note motion,
	supports the Government's objective of securing agreement . . . in line with the agreement reached by Heads of Government at the December European Council.
	I do not know who drafted that, but whoever it was must knowdefinitely knowsthat the European Scrutiny Committee insisted as far as we could, in this case successfully, that today's debate should take place on the Floor of the House, not least because the December deal was not, and is not, the deal that we are now debating.
	I made that point in an intervention on the Minister, who has still not returned to the Chamber. I do not know why. I suppose that he must be embarrassed by the fact that he cannot answer the questions that we are asking. In that intervention I said that Mrs. Grybauskaite, the European Commissioner who I am told is a Lithuanian with a black belt in karateI do not know whether the Paymaster General is up to a black belt in karatewas more than keen to get the matter out into the open. According to her, the final spending for 200713 will exceed 600 billion, which is 24 billion above the budget that the Prime Minister announced in December. That means that the taxpayer will have to find an extra 2 billion, and that Britain will now contribute 44 billion to European coffers over the next budget period. In other words, as I said in my intervention, not only does the new total make a mockery of the Prime Minister's claim to have held the budget to 862 billion at the December summit; it makes nonsense of the motion that we are debating. That is the key point.
	No wonder even the Liberal Democrats have been brought shouting and screaming to oppose a piece of European legislation. This is the first time, during my 22 years in the House, that I have heard words uttered by a Liberal Democrat that indicate any opposition to the maniacal system in which we are now involved. I will certainly give way if the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) means that he would like me to.
	The hon. Gentleman has nothing to say, because there is nothing to say. I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats are picking up the message, in view of the abysmal results that they achieved in the recent local government elections. Those of us who have consistently and persistentlyI make no apology for itmaintained an argument that is now being proved correct note that they are having to shift their ground on the issue.
	It is also true, as one or two Members have pointed out, that on 8 June last year, when asked during Prime Minister's Question Time whether the rebate was negotiable, the Prime Minister said
	The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period.[Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	We all know that that was rubbish. I suspect that the Prime Minister knew that it was rubbish at the time, but he was in a very tricky political environment, and the Prime Minister always becomes trickier the trickier the situation becomes.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the European Reform Forum that we set up, and he has the advantage of being able to read the evidence that Will Hutton, the rapporteur to the Kok report, gave to the forum, which is on the transcript and in the public domain. It would be well worth the hon. Gentleman and others reading what Will Hutton had to say about the Lisbon agenda. Despite further such attempts being made since then to deal with this issue, there has been no improvement.
	There is another issue about which I am deeply worried. The European Scrutiny Committee was obliged to say the following in its report:
	It is regrettable that it was not possible to have the debate we recommended on this issue before matters had progressed so far on the new Inter-Institutional Agreement. Nevertheless, we still think a debate on the Floor of the House worthwhile.
	At the heart of that comment lies the fact that this House is being treated with contempt. We are being invited to debate a matter that, to all intents and purposes, has already been sewn up. I regret to say that it has been sewn up with a degree of misrepresentation, in that the figures have been increased and we were not given the chance to debate the issue in sufficient time.
	The own resources decision will have to be debated in the context of a forthcoming European finance Bill. I have asked Ministers when we will have that Bill on a number of occasions, including via a written question. Labour Membersindeed, all straightforward, honest Members of this Househave a decision to make: whether, in the light of the manner in which the House has been treated, they are prepared to vote against their own Government on that Bill. The opportunity to do so will certainly arise, and I strongly urge them to do so.
	Our report also pointed out that this debate could examine the increase in the financial perspective ceilings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, the former Minister for Europe stated in his explanatory memorandum as recently as 21 February that the Government would strongly oppose any proposal to increase the overall expenditure ceiling agreed by the European Council. However, the honest truth is that the Government simply rolled over, and at considerable expense to our own taxpayers.
	Our report also suggested that the debate should look at the reasons for any reallocation of spending between different expenditure headings. The then Minister for Europe said in February that the Government, given the delicate nature of the European Council compromiseI love the way that they put it, but in fact the compromise involved rolling over in the face of President Chirac and pathetic grovelling to other member statesapparently did not see any scope for re-allocation. It is quite disgusting to read how they tried to weasel their way out of explaining what is, in reality, a complete and total failure to subscribe to the principles set out by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Question Time on 5 June last year.
	The report continues:
	The Minister asserts that the European Council agreement represents a good deal for the EU and a good deal for the UK.
	Well, it will cost a good deal of British taxpayers' money, but it is not a good deal for them.
	It is pathetic to have to say so, but the report continues:
	He notes that the proposed total EU expenditure over the period would be 862 billion.
	We know that that figure has gone for six. The report continues:
	As a share of EU GNI, this would mean that the total expenditure ceiling would fall from 1.1 per cent. of EU Gross National Income in 2007 to 1 per cent. in 2013, the lowest level
	it is claimed
	in 20 years. Nevertheless it is an increase in real terms of 13 per cent. compared with the current period.
	That is the point. It also states that there will be
	significant increases in EU spending on priority areas, including . . . a real annual average increase in spending on research and development of 7.5 per cent . . . a sevenfold increase in regional spending
	that is very important and serious
	from 24 billion . . . to 174 billion in the next . . . period.
	That is where the money is going. When we talk about regional spending in relation to the UK and elsewhere, we know what it means. The report also mentions
	the real annual average growth in spending on freedom, security and justice of 15 per cent . . . and . . . an increase of 4.5 per cent . . . in spending on external actions.
	The plain fact is that this is a travesty and a disgrace. This is not a take note motion and there is more than enough reason for the Opposition and Labour Members to vote together to reject this ridiculous financial management.

Wayne David: With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman is very good at soundbites, but the important thing to recognise is that, by our active engagement inside the EU, we are not putting all our eggs in one basket. Yes, we can be effective Europeans and help to develop that economy to our own advantage, but that does not stop us trading with the rest of the world. It is not an either/or situation. Let us do both. Let us recognise that we are an international nation. What concerns me about Opposition Members is that, all too often, what they are saying, when we scrape away all the economic veneer is basically a very crude form of xenophobia. [Hon. Members: Oh, come on.] Yes, it is. When we get down to basics, what they are really saying is that they do not like Europeans. The economic arguments objectively speaking are for Britain's positive engagement in the EU, and for an EU that embraces the free market and makes ever-deeper the single European market. We should be arguing for its completion, not for some kind of semi-detachment or even withdrawal, as some hon. Members would like. That is the real agenda that we must get to grips with in the future.
	The second point that I should like to make in my brief contribution is that I believe that the Government negotiated a good deal for Britain back in December last year. Undoubtedly, some hon. Members who represent certain regions are not particularly happy with the budgetary settlement as negotiated, but let me say quite honestly, as a representative of Caerphilly in south Wales, that we were absolutely delighted that the Government negotiated an effective continuation of objective 1 status for cohesion funding, so that some 1.2 billion will come into our region over the next financial perspective. The first tranche of that money has been put to very good use in tackling economic inactivity and developing economic infrastructure, training and so on, and there is no doubt in my mind that the good situation in south Wales, where more people are in work than ever before in history, will continue and we will be pleasedindeed, we will be singing in the valleyswhen the new strand of funding comes through.

Wayne David: Unemployment is going down; gross domestic product is going up, but the important thing to recognise is that, in the Government's extremely skilful negotiations, they were able to ensure that the figures used by the European Commission were a little out of date[Interruption.] That is true. They do not show effectively the tremendous improvement in the south Wales economy. I am pleased to say that we are having our cake and eating it. Our Government can be criticised for many things, but they cannot be criticised for not being adept at negotiations. That is a practical, material, down-to-earth example that highlights clearly how effective the Government have been in ensuring the continuing development of areas such as the south Wales valleys.

Angus Robertson: I am not keen to enter into the very public grief of the Government at the time of the reshuffle, but want to put on the record some sadness that the Minister for Europe is no longer the Leader of the House, albeit not because I do not think that he has many talents that he will offer in his new post. Those of us who are members of the European Scrutiny Committee will remember a discussion that we had with the right hon. Gentleman several months ago in which he had innovative ideas about improving the scrutiny of European business in the House. I hope very much that his successor as Leader of the House will take those suggestions forward. I have no doubt that the Minister for Europe will bring his great experience to European matters, not least as a former Member of the European Parliament, and we in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru wish him well.
	Speaking as someone who represents a constituency that has benefited greatly from EU funding, I wish to make a point about EU finances that has been sadly lacking from much of tonight's debate. In Moray and the other areas of the highlands and islands, there is tremendous appreciation for the support of the European Union over the past decades. Many of us well remember the cash-starved situation in our communities in the dark 18 years in which the Conservatives were in government. It is ironic to think that throughout that time, Brussels was seen as much more benign when it came to governance than wasperhaps still isWestminster. It is with great regret that the highlands and islands has lost objective 1 funding.
	We have heard much about fraud, mismanagement and the inappropriate use of statistics, but the loss of objective 1 support for the highlands and islands was home-grown. It did not happen because of Brussels, or other dastardly EU member states. Scotland's national wealth was overstated by 21 billion throughout the 1990s owing to a catalogue of flawed assumptions that were used to compile the UK's accounts. Newspaper coverage in The Scotsman at the time said that the UK
	Office of National Statistics has admitted to an Enron-scale error, which has been artificially inflating Scotland's national income by as much as 3.3 billion a year since at least 1989.
	That blunder deprived the highlands and islands of 200 million of EU grants. I hope that hon. Members who have driven through the highlands and islands and are aware how many infrastructure projects were completed only because of the support of the European Union will appreciate that the blunder with which we now have to live, as the recipients of only transitional funding, not objective 1 funding, was severe.
	It is important that we all accept that the loss of EU funding is not of itself a bad thing. As economies throughout the European Union grow and countries become wealthier, surely those of us in the wealthier parts of Europe have to bear part of the burden so that we can ensure that other parts of the EU catch up with us. The argument that I will deploy is thus not motivated by a lack of appreciation for our paying our fair share. We should do that, but it is key that we consider the transitional arrangements between the outgoing funding period and the funding period agreed recently.
	Under the budget deal agreed at the December Council under the UK presidency, the global overall total for European social fund spending was reduced substantially, which will have an impact on communities the length and breadth of the land. Some 308 billion has been allocated for EU funding. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that the UK will receive 9.4 billion, of which 2.6 billion will be allocated to convergence funding for Cornwall, west Wales and the valleys, and the highlands and islands. Approximately 6.2 billion will be allocated to competitiveness funding for other regions.
	In December 2004, the Scottish Executivethe devolved Government comprising the Labour party and the Liberal Democratsestimated that the highlands and islands would get 460 million and the rest of Scotland 721 million. That is a significant amount, and it is important for planning the growth of our economy in the years ahead. Only two short years later, in January 2006, the Executive said that Scotland could receive up to 45 per cent. of the sum we will receive in the current programming period. The highlands and islands would receive 105 million as a so-called statistical effect region under convergence, which is only 60 per cent. of the amount that they currently receive. Basically, the Scottish Executive's estimates have been chopped by two thirds, and the remaining sum is considerably less than they were expecting. Some hon. Members have asked what is being done, but I want to know what the Scottish Executive were doing. What did the Enterprise Minister, Nicol Stephena Liberal Democratdo when he realised that the Scottish economy will lose hundreds of millions of pounds of funding? Why did the Liberal Democrat Transport Minister not bemoan publicly the loss of significant funds to improve road transport, not least throughout the highlands and islands?

Angus Robertson: I very much hope that local authorities, devolved Administrations and Governments everywhere make the most of EU funding. I do not believe in moaning about EU funding, because I have seen the positive benefits that it can bring. I encourage Administrations of all political colours to make the most of it. I cannot stand political cant. We hear that things should be done, but people with political responsibility who could do something about them do not even turn up to important meetings to discuss them. [Interruption.] The hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) say that I should name them. I shall be happy to forward the attendance list for Council of Ministers meetings, so that they can compare and contrast the attendance record of Liberal Democrat Ministers at key EU meetings.
	Time is running out, and at least one other Back-Bench Member is keen to speak. The Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on the UK national strategic reference framework, which sets out general principles for governing ESF spending in the UK as a whole. The Scottish Executive, including the Liberal Democrats, have drafted a Scottish chapter, but it does not specify priorities in future Scottish programmes and does not indicate the resources required for each priority or programme. That is not good enough, because we go on about disconnection and a lack of faith or belief in what the EU can offer, but if we are to re-engage with the public we need to talk more positively about the projects that have delivered on the ground. I very much hope that the Minister will not just defend the UK Government's negotiating position in Decemberwe will hear that anywaybut explain what much of the funding can do on the ground. I hope that in the months ahead there is action from the Scottish Executive and Ministers from both parties, who should live up to their rhetoric about what is vital for communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

Theresa Villiers: We should all be grateful to the European Standing Committee for forcing the Government to put this enormously important issue on the agenda this evening.
	We have heard a number of thoughtful and informed contributions to the debate. We began with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who thought the budget was a good deal. As if to prove that he lives in a sunnier and happier world than the rest of us, he also thought that Europe was making progress on the Lisbon agenda. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) sounded a note of reality. He criticised the Government's sell-out on the common agricultural policy in 2002. I agree that that concession hobbled the Government's negotiating position in the 2005 negotiations, to devastating effect.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) told us that he believed the EU budget was a running sore and called for the repatriation of aid policy, agriculture and fisheries from the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke with huge insight on the issue on which he has spent so many years campaigning. In particular, he challenged Labour Members to vote against the Bill needed to put the new budget into effect. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as we have just heard, protested at what he saw as flawed assumptions which have overstated Scotland's income, with the resulting impact on its entitlement to regional funding. He launched a devastating attack on the record of the Liberal and Labour coalition in the Scottish Executive and its record on regional funding.
	The House heard about the history of the Prime Minister's spectacular sell-out on the British rebate. In 1999, he told The Independent that the rebate was non-negotiable. On 8 June 2005, he reassured the House in the clearest terms:
	The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period. [Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	Less than two weeks later, the rebate was merely
	an anomaly that has to go, but it has to go in the context of the other anomaly being changed away.
	Hence, it was up for negotiation, but only alongside fundamental reform of the CAP.
	Then we had Commission President Barroso saying:
	At the beginning, our British friends said that they would not accept any change
	that is, to the rebate
	without radical change of the CAP. Now, they're not saying that anymore.
	There was complete capitulation when the Prime Minister agreed to surrender 7.1 billion of the British rebate without a single change being made to the common agricultural policy.

Theresa Villiers: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall come to that in due course. I have great sympathy with his observation.
	The Prime Minister's capitulation was not the last cave-in. The European Parliament added another 2.68 billion to the budget in April. More recently, Budget Commissioner Dalia Grybauskait said that EU leaders understated the budget and that the true level over seven years is in excess of 600 billion.
	The Prime Minister has failed to prevent a huge expansion in the EU budget, failed to ensure that others pay their fair shareFrance will still pay 20 per cent. less than Britainand failed to defend the rebate negotiated with such stalwart courage and determination by Margaret Thatcher over 20 years ago.
	Remember that we are not talking about small numbers. The 7.1 billion extra that we will be paying as a result of the rebate sell-out could have wiped out NHS deficits for a start, with several billion left over. It could have paid for thousands of new nurses in our hospitals, teachers in our schools or police officers on our crime-ridden streets. Giving up that money is a betrayal of hard-working families already struggling with the heavy burden of the Chancellor's stealth taxes. Giving it up without reform of the common agricultural policy is a tragic lost opportunitya lost opportunity to remedy an injustice that keeps thousands in Africa struggling with abject and unnecessary poverty.
	The CAP, as we heard this evening, is bad for consumers, bad for the environment and bad for the developing world. The 2004 Red Book states:
	The poorest, who spend the greatest proportion of their income on food, are hit hardest by an implicit tax on food of around 26 per cent. Even after the benefits for farmers are taken into account, the cost to the UK economy has been estimated at some 0.5 per cent. of GDP.
	The consumer association, Which?, has calculated that the CAP inflicts throughout the EU some of the highest costs for food in the world, adding 1,000 to the average family's annual food bill. And the opportunity cost could be even higher: a report by Oxford Economic Forecasting concluded that redeploying CAP funds to better uses, such as research and development, could boost growth by around 1 per cent. of GDP.
	The CAP is a pernicious tax on food that hits the poorest hardest. It hits the poor in Britain and the poor in the developing world, more than half of whom depend on farming to survive. The Institute of Economic Affairs estimates that EU agriculture policies reduce food exports from Africa by roughly 50 per cent. The World Bank has concluded that removing barriers to agricultural trade would benefit developing countries by $54 billion.
	I am sure we all remember the day last year when thousands of our constituents came to see us to seek our help in making poverty history, including campaigners such as Sheila Gallagher, James Catterson and Marie Pearce from my constituency. On that day, it was no surprise that many carried banners stating Axe the CAP, because the unreformed CAP is the single biggest obstacle to trade justice. I think that we were all stunned by the sheer volume of commitment, passion and energy that we witnessed that day, but it was to no avail when the Prime Minister actually came to make the decisions that really mattered at the EU summit in December.
	Despite their warm words, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have manifestly failed to deliver CAP reform trade justice. As Neil O'Brien, director of the think tank Open Europe, put it:
	Over the summer, at Live8 and Gleneagles, there were huge demonstrations of public opposition to unfair trade barriers against developing countries. But for all the difference this has made in Brussels, it might as well never have happened. Trade policy is a good example of how the EU gets away with murder . . . But gradually people are waking up to what the EU is doing in our name. And they should be angry.
	It should make people even angrier that neither the Prime Minister nor his Chancellor has done anything to ensure that the extra billions that we will be paying to Brussels are spent wisely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has pointed out repeatedly, why should we give yet more money to an institution whose accounts have not been signed off by its auditors for 11 years? If the Commission cannot manage its existing multi-billion pound budget, why should we trust it with yet more of the British people's hard-earned money?
	It has become something of an annual ritual for the Court of Auditors to refuse to give a positive statement of assurance about the European Commission's accounts, but we should not let familiarity desensitise us to the seriousness of the problem. If the treasurer of a Barnet gardening club turned up at its annual general meeting to say, I can account for maybe a third of last year's budget, but as for the rest of the money, it could have been lost or stolenI'm not really sure which, it would rightly cause outrage, yet that happens every year in Brussels. If accounts are qualified in the business sector, confidence in a company collapses overnight, in which case the management finds itself out on its ear in double quick time. Furthermore, failure to get one's accounts right in the private sector can see directors facing jail terms, yet that happens every year in Brussels. However, the Prime Minister does not seem to have mentioned that unacceptable state of affairs as he blithely handed over billions of pounds more of our money to the European Union.
	Back in 1999, when the Santer Commission resigned in disgrace, the Prime Minister promised this House root and branch reform. His promises on tackling EU fraud and waste have proved as hollow as his promises on the rebate and on CAP reform. Nearly a decade later, it is still business as usual in Brussels. Nothing has changed since the investigating committee that brought down Mr. Santer's Commission reported:
	It is becoming particularly difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility.
	Year in, year out, the Chancellor votes in ECOFIN to discharge the Commission's accounts without protest, and Labour MEPs vote those accounts through in the European Parliament.
	Every effort is made to silence those who are brave enough to speak out against that complacency. When Marta Andreasen arrived as the Commission's chief accountant, she was horrified by what she found. The Commission's computer systems meant that the large amounts of money could be transferred without leaving any electronic fingerprint. In her words, the accounting systems left
	an open till waiting to be robbed.
	The Commission was not even using double entry bookkeeping, which has been in widespread use throughout Europe since the Venetians invented it more than seven centuries ago. It is a basic tool used by businesses ranging from the largest multinational to the smallest corner shop.
	When Marta Andreasen expressed her concerns to her boss, she was ignored by the person whom the Prime Minister put in charge of achieving the root and branch reform that he had promised. That person was, of course, Neil Kinnock. And when she spoke out publicly, it was Neil Kinnock, who once famously castigated Militant for scuttling round delivering redundancy notices by taxi, who had Andreasen stopped by security officials at Brussels airport and served with a fax threatening her with the sack if she did not keep quiet.

Keith Vaz: Let me take the hon. Lady away from Neil Kinnock to the subject of the debate, which is the budget. I thought that she supported the enlargement of the European Union. If she listened to the opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and to the rest of the debate, she will know that the deal was agreed to fulfil our responsibilities on enlargement. Why does not she deal with that point?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman asked that question in his speech, and I will deal with it right now. Ratification of the own resources decision is required by December 2008, and we expect to be able to introduce primary legislation in this House at the beginning of the 2007 Session.
	Let me turn to several of the matters that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I served together on the Education and Employment Committee when we were both first elected to this House. I recall that he was then rather careful in the arguments that he made and the facts that he used, but his speech today was littered with mistakes, wrong assertions and wrong figures. He is wrong to say that we surrendered the rebate, wrong to say that we gained nothing in return in the agreement, and wrong about the agreement itself. Far from our showingin his wordsutter incompetence, that agreement was believed by many to be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Under the UK presidency we brokered that agreement, which gives the European Union its budget for the future seven-year financial perspective period.

John Healey: The hon. Lady confuses questions about fraud with those about reliability. Our consideration of accounts at ECOFIN will depend on those in the future.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats but is no longer present, conceded that enlargement had been successful in southern Europe and was increasingly perceived as a success in eastern European. He and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet were critical of the CAP. However, let me stress to them both that the CAP is being reformed. Under the UK presidency, we were able to put in place the historic liberalising reform of the UK sugar regime. The total value of the CAP will decrease over the new financial perspective, falling to 51 billion a year by 2013. The fundamental reviewpart of the December agreement and the inter-institutional agreementwill give us the chance to press further towards long-term reform and a vision for the CAP, which sees European farming as capable of being competitive without the need for subsidy or protectionism.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) was in something of a minority. However, he put the case clearly and cogently for a forward-looking Europe. He reminded hon. Members that commitment to enlargement has been fundamental to the UK Government's approach, not only under the current Administration but under the previous one. He also reminded hon. Members that the UK Government have been one of the strongest supporters of EU enlargement and one of its most forceful advocates. He also stressed the importance of the EU's responsibility in helping the new member states undertake the economic development that they require.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) spoke about the responsibility of our mature democracies to help what he called the fragile democracies in eastern Europe. He is right to say that the Government should do that, and we are doing it. We are proud of that commitment.

John Healey: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He has not been here during the debate, and I am not prepared to take as absurd an intervention from him as the one he made on the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said that the UK should pay its fair share for the enlargement of the EU, but he was concerned about the transitional arrangements. The Scottish Highlands and Islands have done very well out of the agreement that was made in 1999, and out of the present financial perspective, and they will continue to benefit from the convergence funding agreed for the next financial perspective. Furthermore, the regional development funding in the UK will largely continue to be sourced directly from the UK Government, not from the European Union.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made speeches rather different from those of my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, East and for Caerphilly. They both made rather wide-ranging speechesindeed, they sometimes ranged rather wide of the motion that we are debatingand there was a degree of common ground between them.
	The hon. Member for Stone repeatedly accused the Government of misrepresenting the budget figures. He did so in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and again in his speech. In each case, he cited the Budget Commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it very clear that the Commissioner's figures on the total budget included counting programmes that are not part of the way in which the European Union calculates its budget. Although she is the Budget Commissioner, Mrs. Grybauskaite's figures are, sadly, incorrect. No other member state, or the Commission, at any time during the financial negotiations assessed the budget in the way that she now pretends to do.

John Healey: The questions that the hon. Gentleman raises are questions for OLAF. Surely he would not contest that we need such a body at the heart of the European Union. We also need the independent internal audit unit that the Commissioner has set up.
	The inter-institutional agreement and the own resources decisions are the final parts of what has been a long difficult negotiation on the financial perspective. As the first negotiation of a union of 25 member states, it was bound to be complex. It is, however, a unique opportunity to modernise the budget and set out a process that will lead to a budget more fit for purpose for the European Union of the 21st century.
	In the first place, the agreement ensures budget discipline. Rejecting the Commission's proposal for a budget of 1,025 billion, member states have instead agreed a budget of 864 billion, or 1.048 per cent. of EU gross national income. By 2013, the starting point for future negotiations, the budget will be about 1 per cent. of EU gross national incomeits lowest level for 20 years.
	The budget also allows for an historic shift in spending from the old member states of the Union to the new central and eastern European member states. It supports our long-argued UK commitment to EU enlargement. Over the coming years, the funds for the new member states will increase from less than 30 billion to more than 170 billiona sevenfold increase. These funds aid their economic development, and they will not only make them more prosperous and more stable, but bring significant benefits to the UK too. UK exports to the eight eastern European new member states totalled in 2004 5.3 billionup by around 230 per cent. over those of the previous decade. Access to these new and growing markets will benefit UK consumers and UK business.
	The historic enlargement of the EU, combined with the intensifying global challenges on the economy, poverty, the environment and security, meant that the financing of the EU could no longer be viewed in the manner that it had been prior to 2004. As the Prime Minister said, as the EU's strongest supporter of enlargement, it was fair and right that the UK contributed properly to the costs of enlargement.
	We have consistently argued, however, and carried out the argument in the negotiations, that the UK abatement remains justified because of the inequalities and inefficiencies on the expenditure side of the budget. The December Council conclusions that were agreed say:
	The UK budgetary correction mechanism (the 'UK abatement') shall remain.
	The UK abatement remains, the abatement mechanism remains unchanged and the deal in December means that the UK will continue to receive the abatement in full on all EU spending in the old member states and on agricultural spending in the new member states, but we will forgo the increase in the abatement resulting from the economic development spending in the new member states and therefore will no longer receive an abatement on spending that contributes to the growth and the prosperity of Europe's poorest countries. As a result of those changes, the UK's net contribution will, for the first time, be similar to that of France and that of Italymember states that are comparable to the UK in size and prosperity.

John Healey: I think that I have made my position clear to the right hon. Gentleman.
	As a result of these changes, the total UK rebate will still be larger over the next financial perspective than the current onean estimated 41 billion in 2004 prices between 2007 and 2013 compared with 36 billion in the current financial perspective.
	Finally, there will be the review of the budget. The review was agreed as part of the December package and confirmed in the inter-institutional agreement. The review will be led by the Commission and will report in 200809. It will allow the Council then to assess the value of all areas of EU expenditure, including the common agricultural policy. This is a process through which we can move to further reform of the CAP and further reform of the European budget as a whole to put it on a more rational and logical basis, so that it can concentrate on the things that are essential to Europe's future.
	Throughout this process of negotiation, the UK's objectives have been consistent. We wanted tight budgetary discipline; we wanted more spending on policy reform, especially more reform to the CAP and the structural funds; we wanted successful enlargement; and we also wanted to protect the UK's financial position. We secured budget growth limited to 13 per cent., when the Commission had proposed 25 per cent. We secured an EU budget that will be less than 1 per cent. of gross national income by 2013its lowest level for 20 years. We secured a massive uplift in social and cohesion fund allocations for the new member states, and secured more flexibility to ensure that those countries can effectively absorb the structural funds and improve their growth and productivity. We secured a doubling in research and development spending, and secured and retained the UK abatement, which will increase in value during the next financial perspective. We secured the political commitment of all member states and the Commission to a fundamental review of all aspects of expenditure and revenue.
	This is good deal for Europe, and it is a good deal for the UK. I commend it to the House.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5973/06, the Commission's revised Proposal for renewal of the Inter-institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, No. 6426/06, the Commission Contribution to the Inter-institutional Negotiations on the Proposal for renewal of the Inter-institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, and No. 7421/1/06, Draft Decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources (//EC, Euratom); and supports the Government's objective of securing agreement on the Inter-institutional Agreement for the 200713 Financial Perspective and the Own Resources Decision in line with the agreement reached by Heads of Government at the December European Council.

George Galloway: This will not be a rant about the venality of the prevailing orthodoxy in the British media. Everyone is currently recalling the words of Enoch Powell, who said that all political careers end in failure. [Interruption.] Actually, mine is going quite well, judging by last Thursday's election results. I advise Labour Members to pipe down on that particular subject; otherwise I shall talk to them about how we ripped apart the corrupt Labour administration in Tower Hamlets, defeating the leader, deputy leader, housing convenor, mayor, deputy mayorI could go on, Mr. Speaker, but you would not allow me to do so.
	I am thinking of another of Mr. Powell's remarks, however: that a politician complaining about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea. In any case, I have my own access to the media, having worked for nearly nine years for Associated Newspapers and for the last 16 weeks as host of a radio talk show on Saturday and Sunday nights.
	It is not the grim and unremitting orthodoxy of the press about which I am concerned this evening, but the slip over the cusp of criminality into which some newspapers have lapsed. As long ago as 5 June 1999, I raised in this House the issue of the agent provocateur behaviour of Mazher Mahmood, otherwise known as the fake sheikh. I warned then that Mr. Murdoch's flagship reporter was not so much involved in unmasking wrongdoing as in dreaming up acts of wrongdoing and setting up individuals to commit them. I should have known that one day, he would try this on me. The expensive though abstemious Dorchester dinner that he threw for me in March of this year was intended to entrap me in a foreign funding scam in advance of the local elections in which my party, Respect, as I have just had the opportunity to say, did rather well. When I rebuffed this crude attempt to suborn me, Mr. Murdoch's finest tried to entice me down the poisonous path of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial.
	Nearly as reprehensible were the arguments later adduced by counsel for Mahmood, paid for by Murdoch, in its vain attempt to prevent me from publishing pictures of the fake sheikh, which can now be found on the Respect coalition website and in other places. Its argument that this was an invasion of Mahmood's privacy, and that pictures of him taken for one purpose should not be used for anotherfor publication in a national newspaperwould of course put The News of the World out of business. In the words of Justice Mitting, who heard the case:
	I'm surprised that that argument is being advanced from your corner.
	The point is that Mahmood's behaviour toward me and many others whom he did manage to deceive is not only reprehensible but surely illegal, as Professor Roy Greenslade has argued in several recent articles. I should be interested to hear the Government's view on this, and to hear of any plans that they have to tackle this abuse of press freedom.
	The House will know that I have spent much of the past three years successfully dealing with false and defamatory allegations published about me in a variety of American and British newspapers. These newspapers have now had to pay out some 2 million in damages and costs to me and my lawyers as a result of those libels. That a crime was committed against me in Baghdad by forgers constructing fake incriminating materials cannot be gainsaid. The Christian Science Monitor published on its front page a story that I had received more than $10 million in regular payments from a son of Saddam Hussein whom I never met, beginning a year before I had ever visited Iraq, and ending some months after I left Iraq for the last time. Those documents, which contained forgeries of my signature and elaborate attempts at a chronology matching my actual visits to Iraq, were brought by The Christian Science Monitor from an Iraqi general whom it named and photographed within days of the fall of Baghdad to the invading forces.
	After I began legal proceedings against The Christian Science Monitor, and after The Mail on Sunday had bought another set of documents from the same Iraqi general, purporting to show my receipt of a different $10 million from a different son of Saddam Hussein, The Christian Science Monitor sent its documents to leading American universities for forensic examination. It was a precaution that it ought to have taken before publication, rather than afterward, because the documents were swiftly exposed as forgeries, as were the documents bought by The Mail on Sunday from the same source in the same week.
	When both newspapers unmasked the forgeries they had bought, I called on our Government to cause our officials in Baghdad to visit that Iraqi general and ask him why he was circulating forged materials about a British Member of Parliament. There was only silence from the Government and the Iraqi general remains unvisited by any of our embassy personnel. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the Government would not be keen to get to the bottom of such a conspiracy or perhaps, like me, you already know the reason why.
	When the Telegraph Group cornered the market over several weeks in April and May 2003 in documents apparently exhumed from a burning building in Baghdad, many smelled a similar species of rat. Documents incriminating Russia and France and, more importantly, documents appearing to link the former Iraqi regime with Osama bin Laden personally were all scoops missed by every other media outlet, but not by The Daily Telegraph. In that burning building were allegedly found, of course, the documents about me for which it was condemned in the libel courts and caned by Mr. Justice Eady, who said that the paper had rushed to publish the documents, and had adopted them and editorialised upon them with relish.
	I can reveal this evening for the first time that the Telegraph journalist, Mr. David Blairan unfortunate coincidence of nameand at least one of his superiors in London lied in the High Court during my libel action. Their claim that Mr. Blair was not led to those documents but had merely chanced upon them while wandering around a looted and burning building, and that he had found all of the documents published by the Telegraph in the same place, at the same time and in the same box, is quite simply a lie.
	On 18 July 2003 a very senior British journalist, a foreign correspondent on a national daily, with impeccable credentials and with no conceivable reason to lie, visited me in the House of Commons in my office in Portcullis House. He had been seeking that meeting with me for several weeks. What he told me is perhaps best described by a paraphrasing of the email I sent my lawyer at exactly 13.41 that day, just minutes after that senior British journalist left my office. I told my lawyer that on the weekend David Blair found the documents he was supposed to travel with my contact to the south of Iraq, but pulled out at the hotel door at the last minute and without explanation. He had a conversation with my contact on the day the first Telegraph story was published. He insisted that he had found the documents, though he said that he was uneasy about their veracity. My contact says that Blair was very anxious and nervous about the scale of the treatment of the story by The Daily Telegraph and its clear assumption of guilt.
	On the day of the follow-up piece, Mr. Blair and my contact spoke again. This time, Mr. Blair confessed that the second set of documents, published by the Telegraph had in fact been given to him and that he had not, as he had claimed, found them. He said to my contact that he was not able to say who gave them to him. He said that he had been told by London to continue to insist that he found those documents, and that my contact must never divulge the true story.
	After they both left Iraq, David Blair telephoned my contact to ask if anyone else knew about the true provenance of the documents. Well now we all know.
	My contact told me further that Philip Sherwell of The Sunday Telegraph said that he had himself trawled the same room in the same building and that everything was fire or sprinkler-damaged beyond repair. On Sherwell's prior visit, the box Blair later claimed to have found was not there.
	Of course, the fact that the second set of Telegraph documents was not found, as the paper falsely claimed, but was given to Mr. Blair by somebody does not necessarily mean that the first set of documents was not found in the building. But the fact that the paper lied under oath about the provenance of the second set of documents must reasonably suggest either that both sets of documents were given to the Telegraph's reporter or, at the very least, that the Telegraph was led to the first by the person or persons who provided the second. I am not unmindful of the gravity of what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. If my foreign correspondent visitor is right, a criminal conspiracy was hatched and executed between Baghdad and London against me.
	The Telegraph's then proprietor was, of course, a foreign billionaire, Lord Conrad Black. The noble lord was nothing if not ideologically engaged. According to Philippe Sands QC in his recent book, Lawless World, the British Prime Minister told the American Government of George W. Bush that Black was very helpfully using the influence of his papers to make the case for the war. Mazher Mahmood's employer, too, is a foreign billionaire, although unlike Lord Black there is no evidence that he is also a thief, but that must pose the question of how content we are to allow that massive concentration of media ownership in the hands of foreign billionaires with an ideological crusade in their hearts and an axe to grind.
	The Government's attitude has been one of collusion withsome would say obeisance tothose foreign owners. The Government no doubt hoped that that would ensure them a different fate to that suffered by previous Labour Administrations at the hands of the newspaper barons. If so, they must know differently now.
	What is to be done? Should we allow 40 per cent. of newspaper circulation in Britain to be in Rupert Murdoch's grubby handsfrom the streetwalkers of the News of the World to the higher class of courtesan at The Times? Will we allow our local press to be subject, as it is through takeover, to increasing monopolisation?
	For almost 20 years in the House I have opposed state regulation of the press, and I oppose it still. I believe that freedom and democracy in this country would lose more than they would gain from such regulation, but part of the answer to those questions lies in the Government's hands: first, through modifying their relations with those media magnates and, secondly, through caps on media ownership, especially ownership by foreign billionaires whose loyalty is certainly not to this country.

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend said a little earlier to the House, he has been successful in his prosecutions, because he is now 2 million better off. It looks as though the recourse that he has taken, either through the PCC or the courts, has been quite successful. By his own admission, he has been quite successful in bringing those concerned to book in one form or another, through the courts of the land or the PCC. He has informed the House that he and his lawyers have received about 2 million in the recent past. By that token, there has been some success in addressing that complaint.

George Galloway: I had to risk absolute and total ruin to do so. I would either have been 2 million up or 2 million down. Most people cannot risk doing that and do not have families that permit them to do that. That is why we need something a bit stronger than what my right hon. Friend has to say this evening.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is not what I would call the normal family. He is slightly different and slightly more of a personality. Just occasionally, he attracts a little interest from the pressI do not know whether he goes out to do so, but he might from time to time. It is stretching the imagination just a little to say that he is one of the ordinary citizens of this country. By his own admission, at least he has been able to use the courts of this land to bring his case, which has been found in his favour.
	I do not wish to diminish the importance of such complaints, but it is important that we keep a sense of perspective. Considering the vast number of publications, the articles that they contain and the copies distributed, the number of complaints about any clause in the PCC's code is very small, and this area is one of the smallest. Complaints about accuracy continue to provide the commission with the bulk of its workmore than 50 per cent. of the letters that it receives are about accuracy.
	The PCC continues to monitor customer satisfaction by asking all complainants for their views on whether they are satisfied with how their complaints were handled. In 2004, 305 complainants returned the anonymous feedback form. The results were as follows: 94 per cent. of people whose complaints were either upheld or resolved were satisfied or very satisfied with the way in which their case had been handled; 79 per cent. of respondents considered the time taken to deal with their complaint had been about right; 94 per cent. of the complainants found the commission's literature to be clear or very clear; 87 per cent. found the PCC staff to be helpful or very helpful; and 60 per cent. overall concluded that their complaints had been handled satisfactorily or very satisfactorily. That was in line with the previous years and included those cases where the commission found no breach of the code and one might expect some hostility to the PCC.
	I am not suggesting that there is no room for improvement, because there certainly is and neither do I believe that there is any room for complacency. I have great sympathy for those who suddenly find themselves thrust into the media spotlight, particularly if it is not their choice. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has the opportunity to come here tonight and present his case. There are members of the general public who, when they find themselves in such circumstances, have great difficulty in finding a platform from which to raise such matters.
	I do not accept wholly what the hon. Gentleman says about the PCC. As I tried to indicate, those who have used it find that the organisation is reasonably satisfactory in dealing with their complaints. However, as I said, the matter needs to be kept under review and vigilance is important. I believe that what we have in place to protect the freedom of the press on the one handI think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with thatand to give recourse when there has been transgression from the code is about right. However, that is not to say that we do not keep the situation under constant reviewwe do. I hope that that is satisfactory to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.